This looks pretty sensible, and pretty simple. Why the RFC?
This looks good to me modulo a few tiny nitpicks below:
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c
> index 1414ab79eacf..75b44b82ad1f 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c
> @@ -126,6 +126,7 @@ xfs_cleanup_inode(
> xfs_remove(XFS_I(dir), &teardown, XFS_I(inode));
> }
>
> +
> STATIC int
> xfs_generic_create(
> struct inode *dir,
Nit: this adds a spuurious empty line.
> @@ -161,7 +162,14 @@ xfs_generic_create(
> goto out_free_acl;
>
> if (!tmpfile) {
> - error = xfs_create(XFS_I(dir), &name, mode, rdev, &ip);
> + bool need_xattr = false;
> +
> + if ((IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SECURITY) && dir->i_sb->s_security) ||
> + default_acl || acl)
> + need_xattr = true;
> +
> + error = xfs_create(XFS_I(dir), &name, mode, rdev,
> + need_xattr, &ip);
It might be wort to factor the condition into a little helper. Also
I think we also have security labels for O_TMPFILE inodes, so it might
be worth plugging into that path as well.
