From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCA39C54EE9 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 08:28:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S239152AbiIFI2w (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Sep 2022 04:28:52 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:52246 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S239025AbiIFI2j (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Sep 2022 04:28:39 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70B8B696E5 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 01:28:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 9712D68BEB; Tue, 6 Sep 2022 10:28:34 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2022 10:28:34 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Christian Brauner Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Seth Forshee Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] acl: add vfs_set_acl_prepare() Message-ID: <20220906082834.GA9377@lst.de> References: <20220829123843.1146874-1-brauner@kernel.org> <20220829123843.1146874-4-brauner@kernel.org> <20220906045746.GB32578@lst.de> <20220906074532.ysyitr5yxy5adfsx@wittgenstein> <20220906075313.GA6672@lst.de> <20220906080744.3ielhtvqdpbqbqgq@wittgenstein> <20220906081510.GA8363@lst.de> <20220906082428.mfcjily4dyefunds@wittgenstein> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220906082428.mfcjily4dyefunds@wittgenstein> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 10:24:28AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > I think any data that requires to be interpreteted by the VFS needs to > have dedicated methods. Seth's branch for example, tries to add > i_op->{g,s}et_vfs_caps() for vfs caps which also store ownership > information instead of hacking it through the xattr api like we do now. Yes. Although with LSMs this will become really messy, but then again creating a complete unreviewable und auditable mess is what the LSM infrastructure was created for to start with..