On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 01:31:21PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Not having had a chance to review this code I can't really comment on > the quality of this code. What I do know from a glance is that > you have not removed FS_BINARY_MOUNTDATA. Which is the root cause > of some of the crazy security mount option processing, and is an if > not greater mess than what the security options have been doing with > mount options. > > The FS_BINARY_MOUNTDATA flag is only relevant for coda and for nfs > backwards compatiblity. The FS_BINARY_MOUNTDATA flag is only set on > btrfs to allow calling mount_subtree. ... and thus it can't be killed without having dragged the NFS pile into the entire thing. > I have a set of patches that is finally reasonablly stable and cleans up > all of the mess in the current internal mount apis that should allow > implementing the new mount api to be much less error prone. Quick question: how do you deal with the differences in quoting for selinux options and for everything else? I've no problem with working with you, now that you've resurfaced. Fair warning: no promises of accepting your solutions. Along with a promise to reject anything that breaks existing setups, which your earlier proposals did. With NFS among the victims, IIRC.
