On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 8:46 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > As per the discussion in the last round: > > Hard-NAKed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > > We need to solve the whole btrfs subvolume st_dev thing out properly > and not leak these details in fanotify. > With all due respect, your NACK is uncalled for. Did you look at the patches? Did you actually study what they do? Please point out a single line of code that leaks details to fanotify as you claim. The "details" that fanotify reports and has reported since circa v5.1 are the same details available to any unprivileged user via calls to statfs(2) and name_to_handle_at(2). The v2 patches do not change anything in that regard. This is an internal fanotify detail (whether we allow setting a watch on an inode inside a sub-volume), which does not expose any new details to usersapce. It has nothing to do with your campaign to fix the btrfs non-uniform st_dev/f_fsid issue. Thanks, Amir.
