On Fri, 30 Sept 2022 at 14:49, Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 02:24:33PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > Maybe adding the check to ovl_get_acl() is the right way to go, but > > I'm a little afraid of a performance regression. Will look into that. > > Ok, sounds good. I can probably consolidate the two versions but retain > the difference in permission checking or would you prefer I leave them > distinct for now? No, please consolidate them. That's a good first step. > > So this patchset nicely reveals how acl retrieval could be done two > > ways, and how overlayfs employed both for different purposes. But > > what would be even nicer if there was just one way to retrieve the acl > > and overlayfs and cifs be moved over to that. > > I think this is a good long term goal to have. We're certainly not done > with improving things after this work. Sometimes it just takes a little > time to phase out legacy baggage as we all are well aware. But then which is legacy? The old .get_acl() or the new .get_acl()? My impression is that it's the new one. But in that case the big renaming patch doesn't make any sense. Thanks, Miklos
