On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 02:21:56PM +1000, James Morris wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Kasatkin, Dmitry wrote:
>>
>> > I looked to <linux/fs.h> and found that there is a possibility to to
>> > add additional flag for sb->s_flags.
>> > For example
>> >
>> > #define MS_NOT_IMA (1<<25) /* NOT_IMA */
>> > #define IS_I_NOT_IMA(inode) __IS_FLG(inode, MS_NOT_IMA)
>> >
>> >
>> > Another way is to add additional dedicated integrity related member to
>> > the sb structure.
>> > struct super_block {
>> > ...
>> > #ifdef CONFIG_INTEGRITY
>> > int s_integrity;
>> > #endif
>> > };
>> >
>> > Obviously there are only few super blocks in the system and few bytes
>> > will not harm.
>>
>> The flag seems better than adding a new struct member. Why would you need
>> an int for this?
>
> Per-superblock bit would be a bit better, but I really hate the way we have
> them mixed up between superblock ->s_flags bits and mount(2) action weirdly
> encoded into flags thing. If we are going to touch that thing, how about
> separate S_... bits, with MS_... crap left only for mount(2) decoding? Mapped
> to S_... when needed.
>
> The really messy part is that right now we silently ignore all the unknown
> bits in mount(2) flags argument ;-/ It's *not* a widely used syscall, but
> still - changing that in a non-trivial way is potential userland breakage.
Indeed it is quite messy.
My understanding is that S_ flags are inode->i_flags. Would it be also
a bit confusing?
Do you suggest to add additional superblock flags attribute? What
could be moved there?
- Dmitry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
