On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 10:28:40PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 01:19:47PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 10:12:24PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > > I don't expect this patch to be mergeable but rather to kick-off a > > > > discussion if we can either simply export them as they are or how we can > > > > get supportable exports that allow access to struct files_struct. > > > > > > Maybe that wasn't obvious from the first message. Is there any way we > > > can come up with a way to have versions of these functions that you > > > would be fine with exporting? > > > The point is that otherwise we would have to either duplicate the code > > > or come up with something way more complex. If you have any pointer that > > > would already help. > > > > He said in the first reply this should probably be using an anonfd. > > If you do that, I think all four of these exports go away. > > I try and see if that is possible. > > > > > And there was really no reason to post each of the four exports as > > separate patches. That just makes review harder on everyone. > > Sorry about that. It usually depends on the preferences of each > maintainer how fine-grained such minor changes should be. The fundamental problem here (besides "who the hell thought that this Fine Piece Of Software belongs anywhere other than in /dev/null?") is that messing with other's descriptor table is Fucking Wrong(tm). It's not going to become a general-purpose interface. That kludge is just that - a kludge caused by atrocious API design. Exports NAKed, and if brought again they'll get NAKed with extreme prejudice (sensu PTerry).
