From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268238AbUHXTaj (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:30:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268246AbUHXTai (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:30:38 -0400 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:26346 "EHLO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268238AbUHXT31 (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:29:27 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH][2/7] xattr consolidation - LSM hook changes From: Andreas Gruenbacher To: Al Viro Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Steve French In-Reply-To: <20040824025259.GC21964@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> References: <1093288398.27211.257.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <20040824025259.GC21964@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: SUSE Labs Message-Id: <1093375652.20259.73.camel@winden.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:27:32 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 04:52, viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote: > On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 08:54:14PM -0400, James Morris wrote: > > On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Stephen Smalley wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 15:03, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > > > Given that the actual methods take a dentry this sounds like a bad design. > > > > Can;t you just pass down the dentry through all of the ext2 interfaces? > > > > > > Changing the methods to take an inode would be even better, IMHO, as the > > > dentry is unnecessary. That would simplify SELinux as well. > > > > This could work for all in-tree filesystems with xattrs, except CIFS, > > which passes the dentry to it's own build_path_from_dentry() function. > > > > (In this case, they probably want to use d_path() and have a vfsmnt added > > to the methods?). > > No. Think for a second and you'll see why - we are doing an operation that > by definition should not depend on where we have mounted the filesystem in > question. Hm. I seem to recall that Al didn't want to change this within the 2.6 series -- is this still the case? I would favor switching from dentries to inodes in the xattr iops. Steve, can you live with inodes? Cheers, -- Andreas Gruenbacher SUSE Labs, SUSE LINUX AG