From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Shared flags Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 06:39:38 -0500 Message-ID: <20081115113938.GA26576@infradead.org> References: <49183DF9.9010003@etersoft.ru> <20081111085211.GB2323@infradead.org> <20081111100940.GA8968@shareable.org> <20081111111428.GA18228@infradead.org> <491BFCBA.80208@etersoft.ru> <20081113092554.GA3004@infradead.org> <20081114033712.GL2055@shareable.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081114033712.GL2055@shareable.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jamie Lokier Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Pavel Shilovsky , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 03:37:12AM +0000, Jamie Lokier wrote: > A generic mount option is currently used for mandatory locking - this > is very similar. > > The only different I see, for security, is with mandatory locking a > process which doesn't want to get stuck can check the permission bits > before opening a file. But I'm not aware of anything actually doing this. More importantly the admin can do it. And mandatory locking doesn't mean you can't remove something, with would be a complete nightmare. It also doesn't apply to directories, which from my reading of the patch this one would do. But yeah, doing the read/write part as as a special case of mandlock on open might make some sense, but I'm still not too convinced. That more I think about these option the less I like the idea, it's just going to cause a lot of problems to help with some wine issues that hasn't even been explained yet.