On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 3:47 AM Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 2023-03-27 at 17:02 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 3:30 AM Roberto Sassu > > <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, 2023-03-24 at 17:39 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 9:26 AM Roberto Sassu > > > > <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 2023-03-24 at 11:18 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 2023-03-23 at 20:09 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 4:19 AM Roberto Sassu > > > > > > > <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx> ... > > Okay, that's fair, but we could still pass the full xattrs array and a > > reference to the current count which could be both read and updated by > > the individual LSMs, right? > > Yes, we could do. > > > The issue is that the separate compaction stage is not something we > > want to have to do if we can avoid it. Maybe we're stuck with it, but > > I'm not yet convinced that we can't make some minor changes to the > > LSMs to avoid the compaction step. > > I liked more the idea that LSMs do what they are most familiar with, > get an offset in a security blob or, in this case, a starting slot in > the new_xattrs array, and write there. > > v3 had the lsm_find_xattr_slot() helper, to get the starting slot, but > somehow I find it less intuitive. > > Ok, if you prefer to avoid the compaction stage, I will rewrite this > patch. My concern is having to look through the xattr array after each LSM has been run and in at least one case having to then do a memcpy() to keep the array packed. There are some cases where there is no way to avoid all that extra work, but here I think we have the LSMs do the Right Thing with respect to packing the xattr array without overly burdening the individual LSMs. Does that make sense? It basically comes down to being smart about our abstractions and both selectively, and carefully, breaking them when there is a reasonable performance gain to be had. -- paul-moore.com
