On Tue, 9 May 2017, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Richard Weinberger <richard@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Well, maybe we need a new feature flag in UBIFS that the UUID is now usable. > > Don't think you will need that, as I wrote, none of the proposed changes have > impact on on-disk uuid format and as Oleksij answered, for EVM/IMA checking > uuid is an opt-in feature. > > > > > My POV is easy, I'm nervous about all this changes and the rush behind them. > > And when Christoph raises concerns, I'm especially careful. > > That's why I'm taking the UBIFS ->s_uuid patch for 4.13 after I had enough > > time to verify and think. > > Understood your POV :) Thanks a lot for including tmpfs in your enhancements, and mercifully I don't have to worry much about on-disk compatibility :) but even so I share Richard's point of view: if Christoph has some alignment in mind here, then I don't see why the rush to push something else in right now - and the 0day robot seems to agree that it's rushed. A welcome addition to tmpfs once fs is agreed on the way to go - thanks. Hugh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-unionfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
