YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>>> - it seems quite racy.  i don't know if it's a problem for veriexec, tho.
>>>   first and second namei() can see different
>>>   pathnames (if userland pathname buffer is modified) and/or
>>>   vnode (if any components in the pathname is renamed).
>> that's what I was worried about: we do two consequtive namei() calls.
>>
>> do you think there's a way we could have a single namei() in vn_open()
>> to avoid it? or maybe we can copy the pathname to the kernel in
>> vn_open(), and then in consequent namei() calls just use that. because
>> veriexec doesn't care about permissions but relies on internal tables
>> it shouldn't matter, I *think*.
> 
> for the pathname problem, i suggested a solution in PR/35278.
> 
> YAMAMOTO Takashi

can you be more specific?

-e.