Re: lsm sb_delete hook, was Re: [PATCH 4/7] vfs: Convert sb->s_inodes iteration to super_iter_inodes()

[Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>]

On Fri 04-10-24 05:14:36, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 09:21:19AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > But screwing with LSM instructure looks ....  obnoxiously complex
> > > from the outside...
> > 
> > Imho, please just focus on the immediate feedback and ignore all the
> > extra bells and whistles that we could or should do. I prefer all of
> > that to be done after this series lands.
> 
> For the LSM mess: absolutely.  For fsnotify it seems like Dave has
> a good idea to integrate it, and it removes the somewhat awkward
> need for the reffed flag.  So if that delayed notify idea works out
> I'd prefer to see that in over the flag.

As I wrote in one of the emails in this (now huge) thread, I'm fine with
completely dropping that inode->i_refcount check from the
fsnotify_unmount_inodes(). It made sense when it was called before
evict_inodes() but after 1edc8eb2e931 ("fs: call fsnotify_sb_delete after
evict_inodes") the usefulness of this check is rather doubtful. So we can
drop the awkward flag regardless whether we unify evict_inodes() with
fsnotify_unmount_inodes() or not. I have no strong preference whether the
unification happens as part of this patch set or later on so it's up to
Dave as far as I'm concerned.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR