From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/13] vfs: don't parse "silent" option
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 12:53:34 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOssrKc=1FDpOzgpzO9dtkk2sTyq2VVL5ajqgowh4PafzQQJBg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOssrKdGSRVSc38X1J0zCQQN+tUhiwPA4bCL0rHCZ-O8iVzzeQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 12:44 PM Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 12:36 PM David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > What I'm saying is that with a new interface the rules need not follow
> > > the rules of the old interface, because at the start no one is using
> > > the new interface, so no chance of breaking anything.
> >
> > Er. No. That's not true, since the old interface comes through the new one.
>
> No, old interface sets SB_* directly from arg 4 of mount(2) and not
> via parsing arg 5.
See also 9p mess up of "posixacl" handling *on the old interface* due
to exactly because the internal API doesn't differentiate between
options coming from the old interface and ones coming from the new.
So you are right that there's breakage, but it's due to the fact that
common code parses anything, and not because it doesn't.
Thanks,
Miklos
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-24 10:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-19 12:30 [PATCH 01/13] vfs: verify param type in vfs_parse_sb_flag() Miklos Szeredi
2019-06-19 12:30 ` [PATCH 02/13] vfs: move vfs_parse_sb_flag() calls into filesystems Miklos Szeredi
2019-06-19 12:30 ` [PATCH 03/13] vfs: don't parse forbidden flags Miklos Szeredi
2019-06-19 12:30 ` [PATCH 04/13] vfs: don't parse "posixacl" option Miklos Szeredi
2019-06-19 12:30 ` [PATCH 05/13] vfs: don't parse "silent" option Miklos Szeredi
2019-06-20 4:40 ` Ian Kent
2019-06-24 8:25 ` Miklos Szeredi
2019-06-24 10:36 ` David Howells
2019-06-24 10:44 ` Miklos Szeredi
2019-06-24 10:53 ` Miklos Szeredi [this message]
2019-06-19 12:30 ` [PATCH 06/13] vfs: new helper: vfs_parse_ro_rw() Miklos Szeredi
2019-06-19 12:30 ` [PATCH 07/13] proc: don't ignore options Miklos Szeredi
2019-06-19 12:30 ` [PATCH 08/13] sysfs: " Miklos Szeredi
2019-06-19 12:30 ` [PATCH 09/13] mqueue: " Miklos Szeredi
2019-06-19 12:30 ` [PATCH 10/13] cpuset: " Miklos Szeredi
2019-06-19 12:30 ` [PATCH 11/13] cgroup: " Miklos Szeredi
2019-06-19 12:30 ` [PATCH 12/13] fusectl: " Miklos Szeredi
2019-06-19 12:30 ` [PATCH 13/13] resctrl: " Miklos Szeredi
2019-07-01 8:45 ` [PATCH 01/13] vfs: verify param type in vfs_parse_sb_flag() Miklos Szeredi
2019-07-04 16:19 ` David Howells
2019-09-06 7:28 ` Miklos Szeredi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAOssrKc=1FDpOzgpzO9dtkk2sTyq2VVL5ajqgowh4PafzQQJBg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=mszeredi@redhat.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=raven@themaw.net \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).