On 5/31/2023 6:22 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 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 am curious what you consider a weirdo thing done by LSMs. Things like io_uring are much stranger than anything an LSM does. > >> 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. Mostly developers play by the rules, and we don't let things sneak in.
