From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:44152 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752035AbbKTDYz (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Nov 2015 22:24:55 -0500 Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 03:24:53 +0000 From: Al Viro To: Linus Torvalds Cc: linux-fsdevel , Linux Kernel Mailing List , LSM List , Miklos Szeredi , David Howells Subject: Re: [RFC] readlink()-related oddities Message-ID: <20151120032451.GK22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20151119232635.GI22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20151120025749.GJ22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 07:16:32PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > .. it's not necessarily just readlink() either. I still think it might > be a perfectly fine idea to allow non-directories to act as > directories in some case (by exposing "readdir" and "lookup"). As soon as we expose ->lookup(), we are in for serious PITA with locking. Please, don't. The situation is convoluted enough as it is; playing with parallel lookups is going to be interesting in itself and I'd rather not mix it with attempts to accomodate for hybrid objects (e.g. something with children and more than one parent, etc.), especially since I'm not sure the latter can be done without major pain.