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;
Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley
        Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United
        Kingdom.
        Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
From:   David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <1596555579.10158.23.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
References: <1596555579.10158.23.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <159646178122.1784947.11705396571718464082.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
To:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Cc:     dhowells@redhat.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@redhat.com>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        raven@themaw.net, mszeredi@redhat.com, christian@brauner.io,
        jannh@google.com, kzak@redhat.com, jlayton@redhat.com,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/18] VFS: Filesystem information [ver #21]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2329128.1596647628.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Wed, 05 Aug 2020 18:13:48 +0100
Message-ID: <2329129.1596647628@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> wrote:

> It sort of petered out into a long winding thread about why not use
> sysfs instead, which really doesn't look like a good idea to me.

It seemed to turn into a set of procfs symlinks that pointed at a bunch of
sysfs stuff - or possibly some special filesystem.

> Could I make a suggestion about how this should be done in a way that
> doesn't actually require the fsinfo syscall at all: it could just be
> done with fsconfig.

I'd prefer to keep it separate.  The interface for fsconfig() is intended to
move stuff into the kernel, not out of it.  Better to add a parallel syscall
to go the other way (kind of like we have setxattr/getxattr, sendmsg/recvmsg).

Further, fsinfo() can refer directly to a file/fd/mount/whatever, but
fsconfig() doesn't do that.  You have to use fspick() to get a context before
you can use fsconfig().  Now, that's fine if you want to gather several pieces
of information from a particular object, but it's not so good if you want to
get one piece of information from each of several objects.

> ... make it table configured...

I did, kind of (though I didn't call it that).  Al rewrote the code to get rid
of it.

David