From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga08-in.huawei.com (szxga08-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.255]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8925B18030; Tue, 27 Aug 2024 03:07:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.255 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724728060; cv=none; b=kaRtkSjoIzTyLdt8xIQx/Vh+XcNqeOD1623T30IystpJpTyvEYVp880vEok78+QMMf+ZPp5p3ZhT44C6G2H+DCvcGUv+jPRBni6nM0MLLnXDy5CkuMRtdCwvzdA0bYuoWxXtUR6Vto3mx+fJIgYDkPOHEe1bGDZkNs6pR8o/Lsg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724728060; c=relaxed/simple; bh=CyZfbQmPhMQsZgkcv0sUPwAENxyiX4nXFW6VgAc4L2o=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=nrqAEceH8bn0lQkoi4Qm9JcJBPgS3hqqXyRtoSXhr1fvpEFp2d9l9jQgeiekbQCch8EU27LIacpCDUW25IFd5PCFBHGPmewNL7uJRnMozdJME14w24vhk9a6CtaAmYV62yd10DmIbuOKuLXc3mNwefXri4IiLikOPF/iOPSgofw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.255 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.88.105]) by szxga08-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4WtCBJ4r0Kz16PTM; Tue, 27 Aug 2024 11:06:48 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggpeml500022.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.185.36.66]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FC3B140137; Tue, 27 Aug 2024 11:07:35 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.67.111.104] (10.67.111.104) by dggpeml500022.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.66) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.39; Tue, 27 Aug 2024 11:07:34 +0800 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 11:07:34 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] fs: obtain the inode generation number from vfs directly Content-Language: en-US To: Matthew Wilcox CC: , , , , , , References: <20240827014108.222719-1-lihongbo22@huawei.com> From: Hongbo Li In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.183) To dggpeml500022.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.66) On 2024/8/27 10:53, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 01:41:08AM +0000, Hongbo Li wrote: >> Many mainstream file systems already support the GETVERSION ioctl, >> and their implementations are completely the same, essentially >> just obtain the value of i_generation. We think this ioctl can be >> implemented at the VFS layer, so the file systems do not need to >> implement it individually. > > ... then you should also remove the implementation from every > filesystem, not just add it to the VFS. > Yeah, this is just an RFC submission, mainly to see what everyone's opinions are. If this is ok, I will send the v2 that includes the removal of all file systems' implementations on IOC_GETVERSION. Thanks, Hongbo >