Re: [PATCH -next 0/2] lsm: Change inode_setattr() to take struct

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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




[Index of Archives]     [LARTC]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]
  Powered by Linux