From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] Enable atomic inode security labeling Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 03:32:06 +0100 Message-ID: <20050712023206.GE26128@infradead.org> References: <1120829121.19035.45.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <20050710234028.GB1301@infradead.org> <1121088699.12334.50.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linuxfs , Alexander Viro , Ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Andreas Gruenbacher , Andreas Dilger , Andrew Morton , Stephen Tweedie , James Morris , Chris Wright Return-path: Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:49549 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261783AbVGLCcH (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:32:07 -0400 To: Stephen Smalley Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1121088699.12334.50.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 09:31:39AM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > I was planning on leaving the security_inode_post* hooks intact at least > until the other filesystem types that support security xattrs have all > been converted to use the new hook, Having these transactional guarantees just for some filesystem and not others is really bad, we should provide a coherent interface. > and even then only after a separate > RFC to confirm that it is ok to kill those hooks. Otherwise, we'd be > breaking any existing systems that are using SELinux with xfs, jfs, or > reiserfs. Partial transitions are always bad things, and we should avoid them for one that only affects these few users of the interface. Just keep the patch in -mm until people have updated these filesystems. I'll look at XFS ASAP.