On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 03:58:35PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > The main concern which was expressed on other patchsets before is that > modifying inode operations to take struct path is not the way to go. > Passing struct path into individual filesystems is a clear layering > violation for most inode operations, sometimes downright not feasible, > and in general exposing struct vfsmount to filesystems is a hard no. At > least as far as I'm concerned. Agreed. Passing struct path into random places is not how the VFS works. > So the best way to achieve the landlock goal might be to add new hooks What is "the landlock goal", and why does it matter? > or not. And we keep adding new LSMs without deprecating older ones (A > problem we also face in the fs layer.) and then they sit around but > still need to be taken into account when doing changes. Yes, I'm really worried about th amount of LSMs we have, and the weird things they do. -- Linux-cachefs mailing list Linux-cachefs@xxxxxxxxxx https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cachefs
