On 5/30/2023 7:28 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 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. Which LSM(s) do you think ought to be deprecated? I only see one that I might consider a candidate. As for weird behavior, that's what LSMs are for, and the really weird ones proposed (e.g. pathname character set limitations) (and excepting for BPF, of course) haven't gotten far. -- Linux-cachefs mailing list Linux-cachefs@xxxxxxxxxx https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cachefs
