On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 3:35 PM Paul Moore <[email protected]> wrote: [...] > > > > There is another question here. These new hooks do not have any in-tree > > user at the moment. This appears to violate the "New LSM Hooks" policy > > in [2]. Could you please give more specific guidance on this? > > There are LSMs which implement mount level access controls, you've > been updating those in your patchset :) I believe that some of those > LSMs do have some (full? needs verification) coverage on the new mount > API. I would expect that a patchset that adds, or modifies the > existing, mount hooks would also update those LSMs accordingly. From > what I've seen, you've done a good job updating the individual LSMs > thus far, but if you have any questions or are unsure of what to do > for any one LSM, please ask and I'm sure the associated devs will be > happy to help.
I don't think the scope here, adding hooks for fsopen, fsconfig, fsmount, fspick, open_tree, open_tree_attr and mount_setattr and using them properly in all LSMs, is a reasonable ask for a single patchset. Given how much time this simple refactoring patchset has taken, I don't foresee this work landing in any reasonable timeframe. Please consider reviewing this set and landing it before asking for more work. Thanks, Song
