Received: by 10.223.185.116 with SMTP id b49csp4488717wrg; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 19:42:19 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225tEjsfCJwiNUZWitmEoRF9ayEY5bQfww/yNsGMCQJqcXziVWUyJlKN6REPNVQja/6+rE0G X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:1683:: with SMTP id h3-v6mr13002201plh.433.1519702938900; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 19:42:18 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1519702938; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=zWwVUIudOUJHaT/oVC9WD1ac8vSL2aOsQDnYOsG3+ztp+krfyN2hflMkQMZ5jQDLGv Dcw5rUHrquSk+5uUua8RAEHgjKCQxbDq0fh/gIT3S3gm7AaifVbheiyOL02VX9D3Pnav cOakaW213c5ZMt5cfHd3we3FE4wySgRVvJdULxo/BjBppF3sd6bnSgzhdH9iZwINVRku kUBVsIiRGLbtUyMQYLLp7NRGmigd1qg42wXocaSUoo1L59lBIkY8yF8RIUXh/YaONjS6 vUnU7uPesNnIo1IJzH1hcQ5182kYwKpsUqItzTRbUyZ6d06dtPxQXH0+qpj5ngIT2EJ3 kvHw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :references:in-reply-to:mime-version:dkim-signature:dkim-signature :arc-authentication-results; bh=WuURbEcUL0CjaXVR/xMpCZfT90hpdRnuNsTPq6inPvU=; b=B/QiKEka1qGC6YbrFUWihykreqzug4+wcIGm9JHZyvZB3HdnlTIIzZ4/uFElp9fI08 c29w0m2GikHs7hp7Mq3S/LUgcVqOuWKwm9nKRX4YsXaoWfB19MZcTkcbOKjOAw7oAeus rmsVVfapiFlq4C5/S3hk8slKjdpDIkyNQYaB/cMLUG5yR6dEoqb0tDgbksFWgIbMxTMb NiC2sCp6QeD1KiMOKuTtqA3pmDpuIco3nbfuA9FJpYyhS6JFIRXT4lg/r1LWB98I5IyE YXK4Dzplid6voFyUo1Rg8FlsxPp8978+1tWELDRdw+J2hE9Zd7nNPe/t8nhEohypxNbm SAgw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=fail header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=TzemIrXW; dkim=fail header.i=@linux-foundation.org header.s=google header.b=d/JTF4Pg; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id v12-v6si7860448plk.256.2018.02.26.19.42.03; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 19:42:18 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=fail header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=TzemIrXW; dkim=fail header.i=@linux-foundation.org header.s=google header.b=d/JTF4Pg; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751723AbeB0DlY (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 26 Feb 2018 22:41:24 -0500 Received: from mail-it0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:54394 "EHLO mail-it0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751617AbeB0DlW (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Feb 2018 22:41:22 -0500 Received: by mail-it0-f46.google.com with SMTP id c11so4141292ith.4; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 19:41:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=WuURbEcUL0CjaXVR/xMpCZfT90hpdRnuNsTPq6inPvU=; b=TzemIrXWKC6JYGsXS1onoOfgWDHuTtSJ9AOsLfkdzOPXNMnvwpNF6ZZvTzvKz4CrTs ODJ55X/jqMhv9CHsXCNG9dT/sgbRQgL2R13TgRV3SkCoCqcJZ+OaWhpBA9lTJV7aLEBe Gr8drlwX41M0JnZMx8D24J1yq/X2jONZMAr7gJ3Y5Bv8P/tYeWKUZGVnLVP6/+fHmAep 8K7yWH3bCL2VufMDD7AJy1h1MQJmg3AgrzF9hULP44a31Kvk6OnAep0/bokuYIXhB1B4 MeXuyOZZI7s3cI9N5JM88Q1d7h0nU2+T1pRtgvkY36KDWRilsQayFWwXNyfMlBoVnbEB 6Z0Q== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux-foundation.org; s=google; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=WuURbEcUL0CjaXVR/xMpCZfT90hpdRnuNsTPq6inPvU=; b=d/JTF4PgCEIjyeWAw2oaH+8eldfuEy7qNaTCyDlY66/slBBieogFbLvk8aYe2zXmAu KQCVr5DW8yf13WWRfOPb5Wr3mw+WjYIH8G7B7FD7uAbBJKv1YIltnDFRzqhJcefyBxi1 U3l6L6R3lruc1Yfu35AgDRZ1XKbk+u+1Rxh7Y= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=WuURbEcUL0CjaXVR/xMpCZfT90hpdRnuNsTPq6inPvU=; b=kVmumKFh8uF7ra+aMd2zewGvWSSU/9FekuwMHYWaSKzxwyAhOBPMPWNcSxZip0BeB9 /35zaLe7CVI8cInbjQs0lHBPHDbm1c31fbdEYg+hsm4xIjnKUf2E6JqvkI+NTfdbDai7 VgQ8fUAfh3dBsfRj7jzh9R+h1EnNhRHNsY4FlDtMvQwt1NyigUwGq648jDeSXZDoxA/9 /j2rpe/+jUHrB8BHfoE5PIYqK4dNGn3fmS0DxEIMZp7uZDQBaYhUQn/z/2r+DOrnK8OP Fn6BpvUQqsCiKw3WyqruVINeJUuS1xk1DtM7vJjhNq+cXSw3QA9h0cr/02aFQk1ig2il rGsw== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPDjOn8zCdDIEUDtYUrKB4qYgWqhA8UePoAT16Z/v4kAiiX6vKRN inuHhayZXV6ubKloBxNFbe6HN+ywzffuFeYh4hM= X-Received: by 10.36.254.199 with SMTP id w190mr14235447ith.108.1519702881982; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 19:41:21 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.135.221 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 19:41:21 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87tvu3qg2b.fsf@xmission.com> References: <87po4rz4ui.fsf_-_@xmission.com> <20180226235302.12708-3-ebiederm@xmission.com> <87r2p7rvn5.fsf@xmission.com> <87tvu3qg2b.fsf@xmission.com> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 19:41:21 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 6VIjTj4Aaa-ITXFFYG9bnEBQUQw Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/7] fs/posix_acl: Document that get_acl respects ACL_DONT_CACHE To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Miklos Szeredi , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Containers , linux-fsdevel , Alban Crequy , Seth Forshee , Sargun Dhillon , Dongsu Park , "Serge E. Hallyn" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 7:14 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > As such I believe that usage of forget_cached_acl should be subsumed by > using ACL_NOT_CACHED. If not we should really come up with a different > helper function name to call from ->get_acl. Preferably one that does > "cmpxchng(p, sentinel, ACL_NOT_CACHED)" so that we remove the races. You make your bias very clear, by simply trying to hide the other case. But for chrissake, that's not the state right now. That other case exists. You can't - and shouldn't - try to just hide it. Besides, that "forget_cached_acl()" approach actually has a valid use case. Maybe you _do_ want to cache ACL's, but with a timeout or revalidation. ACL_DONT_CACHE really is a big hammer that makes caching not work at all. It's not necessarily the right thing to do at all. Linus