From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Weinberger Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ubifs: Remove dead xattr code Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 08:45:37 +0200 Message-ID: <55D57791.4000302@nod.at> References: <1440016553-26481-1-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> <55D54006.9030700@cn.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Subodh Nijsure , Marc Kleine-Budde , Brad Mouring , Gratian Crisan , Artem Bityutskiy , Artem Bityutskiy To: Dongsheng Yang , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Return-path: In-Reply-To: <55D54006.9030700@cn.fujitsu.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Am 20.08.2015 um 04:48 schrieb Dongsheng Yang: > On 08/20/2015 04:35 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote: >> This is a partial revert of commit d7f0b70d30ffb9bbe6b8a3e1035cf0b79965ef53 >> ("UBIFS: Add security.* XATTR support for the UBIFS"). > > Hi Richard, > What about a full reverting of this commit. In ubifs, we > *can* support any namespace of xattr including user, trusted, security > or other anyone prefixed by any words. But we have a check_namespace() > in xattr.c to limit what we want to support. That said, if we want to > "Add security.* XATTR support for the UBIFS", what we need to do is > just extending the check_namespace() to allow security namespace pass. > And yes, check_namespace() have been supporting security namespace. You're right. I thought/hoped we can re-use some parts of it. Se let's do a full revert. I'll send a v2 patch in a jiffy. > So, IMHO, we do not depend on the generic mechanism at all, and we can > fully revert this commit. > > But strange to me, why we picked this commit for ubifs? Artem, is there > something I am missing? TBH, I fear nobody noticed. :( Thanks, //richard