Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 22 Feb 2022 14:16:13 -0500
From:   Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc:     Brian Geffon <bgeffon@google.com>,
        Alasdair Kergon <agk@redhat.com>, dm-devel@redhat.com,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: dm: introduce a DM_ENFORCE_OPEN_COUNT flag.
Message-ID: <YhU2faRZJ4NstJ6L@redhat.com>
References: <20220125002025.GA21887@agk-cloud1.hosts.prod.upshift.rdu2.redhat.com>
 <20220126192234.572058-1-bgeffon@google.com>
 <CADyq12yugY0g2EMYvyrPVn98x3Tp4PR+eVddmmjZpKSYyrrzag@mail.gmail.com>
 <YfqYTuhGqOl4SneK@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YfqYTuhGqOl4SneK@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Feb 02 2022 at  9:42P -0500,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:

> Withmy block hat on: nak to this.  No block driver has any business at
> all rejecting "too many openers".  In fact any opener but the first of
> a partition is already not counted as an opener, and I plan to complete
> hide the open count from the device driver.

I agree that this proposal exposes controls to userspace that simply
shouldn't be meaningful given the arbitrary nature of openers.  And
preventing openers can result in a race where systemd or some other
service opens before the intended primary consumer of the device.

Seriously brittle and even if finely tuned to have a suitable value
for some niche usecase like android: an absolute hack.

Sorry, not interested in taking this.