Re: [PATCH v4 04/30] fs: add new get acl method

From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Seth Forshee <sforshee@kernel.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 04/30] fs: add new get acl method
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 15:01:22 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJfpegtyboFs35Qy67iuKNVEV75924Pdqejh9QZR1R4OB4WkAQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220930124948.2mhh4bsojrlqbsmu@wittgenstein>

On Fri, 30 Sept 2022 at 14:49, Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 02:24:33PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:

> > Maybe adding the check to ovl_get_acl() is the right way to go, but
> > I'm a little afraid of a performance regression.  Will look into that.
>
> Ok, sounds good. I can probably consolidate the two versions but retain
> the difference in permission checking or would you prefer I leave them
> distinct for now?

No, please consolidate them.  That's a good first step.

> > So this patchset nicely reveals how acl retrieval could be done two
> > ways, and how overlayfs employed both for different purposes.  But
> > what would be even nicer if there was just one way to retrieve the acl
> > and overlayfs and cifs be moved over to that.
>
> I think this is a good long term goal to have. We're certainly not done
> with improving things after this work. Sometimes it just takes a little
> time to phase out legacy baggage as we all are well aware.

But then which is legacy?  The old .get_acl() or the new .get_acl()?
My impression is that it's the new one.   But in that case the big
renaming patch doesn't make any sense.

Thanks,
Miklos