Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sun, 19 Jul 2020 18:10:54 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Cc:     David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] fs: add mount_setattr()
Message-ID: <20200719171054.GK2786714@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20200714161415.3886463-1-christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200714161415.3886463-1-christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 06:14:11PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:

> mount_setattr() can be expected to grow over time and is designed with
> extensibility in mind. It follows the extensible syscall pattern we have
> used with other syscalls such as openat2(), clone3(),
> sched_{set,get}attr(), and others.

I.e. it's a likely crap insertion vector; any patches around that thing
will require the same level of review as addition of a brand new syscall.
And they will be harder to spot - consider the likely subjects for such
patches and compare to open addition of a new syscall...