Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-111405-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] ubifs: Introduce ACLs mount options
To: Li Zetao <lizetao1@huawei.com>, <richard@nod.at>
CC: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>
References: <20240319161646.2153867-1-lizetao1@huawei.com>
 <20240319161646.2153867-5-lizetao1@huawei.com>
 <c3d5f06e-bdc4-4312-19a1-17a7a64e8795@huawei.com>
 <b91ebdb0-bcca-18f9-6f0f-5eef6c72b42c@huawei.com>
From: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <4c30c8e4-92fe-9935-b2ee-7b5728f261fc@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:10:11 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.5.0
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b91ebdb0-bcca-18f9-6f0f-5eef6c72b42c@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

在 2024/3/22 20:05, Li Zetao 写道:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2024/3/21 14:49, Zhihao Cheng wrote:
>> 在 2024/3/20 0:16, Li Zetao 写道:
>>> Implement the ability to enable or disable the ACLs feature through
>>> mount options. "-o acl" option means enable and "-o noacl" means disable
>>> and it is enable by default.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Li Zetao <lizetao1@huawei.com>

[...]
>>> @@ -2011,12 +2041,17 @@ static int ubifs_remount_fs(struct 
>>> super_block *sb, int *flags, char *data)
>>>       sync_filesystem(sb);
>>>       dbg_gen("old flags %#lx, new flags %#x", sb->s_flags, *flags);
>>> +    c->mount_opts.acl = 0;
>>>       err = ubifs_parse_options(c, data, 1);
>>
>> 1. mount -onoacl /dev/ubi0_0 /mnt # After that, mount will show 
>> 'noacl' option
>> 2. mount -oremount,xxx /dev/ubi0_0 /mnt
>> If 'xxx' has nothing to do with acl, c->mount_opts.acl is set as '0'. 
>> Then superblock flag is assigned with 'SB_POSIXACL' and mount will not 
>> display 'nocal'. Will it make user confused?
> I have tested this use case and it works fine. This is because the mount 
> options will be re-parsed during remount, just like the last mount. But 
> this is indeed redundant. I adjusted it to make it more reasonable.

Yes, parameter 'data' carries old mount information. Removing the 
redundant assignment is fine.