On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 9:49 AM Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri 04-10-24 05:14:36, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 09:21:19AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > > But screwing with LSM instructure looks .... obnoxiously complex
> > > > from the outside...
> > >
> > > Imho, please just focus on the immediate feedback and ignore all the
> > > extra bells and whistles that we could or should do. I prefer all of
> > > that to be done after this series lands.
> >
> > For the LSM mess: absolutely. For fsnotify it seems like Dave has
> > a good idea to integrate it, and it removes the somewhat awkward
> > need for the reffed flag. So if that delayed notify idea works out
> > I'd prefer to see that in over the flag.
>
> As I wrote in one of the emails in this (now huge) thread, I'm fine with
> completely dropping that inode->i_refcount check from the
> fsnotify_unmount_inodes(). It made sense when it was called before
> evict_inodes() but after 1edc8eb2e931 ("fs: call fsnotify_sb_delete after
> evict_inodes") the usefulness of this check is rather doubtful. So we can
> drop the awkward flag regardless whether we unify evict_inodes() with
> fsnotify_unmount_inodes() or not. I have no strong preference whether the
> unification happens as part of this patch set or later on so it's up to
> Dave as far as I'm concerned.
I didn't get a chance to look at this thread until just now and I'm
noticing that the email used for Mickaël is likely not the best, I'm
adding the email he uses in MAINTAINERS as well as that of Günther
Noack, a designated Landlock reviewer.
Mickaël, Günther, the lore link for the full discussion is below:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/Zv5GfY1WS_aaczZM@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
paul-moore.com
