On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 07:55:17AM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: > Which LSM(s) do you think ought to be deprecated? I have no idea. But what I want is less weirdo things messing with VFS semantics. > > 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. They haven't gotten far for a reason usually. Trying to sneak things in through the back door is exactly what is the problem with LSMs. > ---end quoted text---
