Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.38 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.38;
From:   "J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05g@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: Pass AT_GETATTR_NOSEC flag to getattr interface function
To:     Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     amir73il@gmail.com, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org,
        miklos@szeredi.hu, Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com>,
        syzbot+a67fc5321ffb4b311c98@syzkaller.appspotmail.com,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Tyler Hicks <code@tyhicks.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20231002125733.1251467-1-stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <20231002125733.1251467-1-stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1733.1701983418.1@jrotkm2>
Date:   Fri, 08 Dec 2023 06:10:18 +0900
Message-ID: <1734.1701983418@jrotkm2>
Precedence: bulk

Stefan Berger:
> When vfs_getattr_nosec() calls a filesystem's getattr interface function
> then the 'nosec' should propagate into this function so that
> vfs_getattr_nosec() can again be called from the filesystem's gettattr
> rather than vfs_getattr(). The latter would add unnecessary security
> checks that the initial vfs_getattr_nosec() call wanted to avoid.
> Therefore, introduce the getattr flag GETATTR_NOSEC and allow to pass
> with the new getattr_flags parameter to the getattr interface function.
> In overlayfs and ecryptfs use this flag to determine which one of the
> two functions to call.

You are introducing two perfectly identical functions.
ecryptfs_do_getattr() and ovl_do_getattr().
Why don't you provide one in a common place, such like
include/linux/fs_stack.h?


J. R. Okajima