On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 12:21:50PM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> > Oh, yes, no argue about that. I think that the cost of it is relatively
> > small. Anyway, I thought that, like myself, nobody else found it too
> > expensive. But, see below:
> 
> my concern is not only about its runtime costs.
> i concern its code quality as well.
> for example, when veriexec is compiled in,
> vn_open uses MAXPATHLEN-sized buffer on kernel stack.
> 
> YAMAMOTO Takashi
is there any reason to duplicate ndp->ni_dirp ? pathbuf is only used
when calling veriexec_verify(), which use it only when calling
veriexec_report().

regards, 

 - Arnaud