From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751812AbdFIQEf (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:04:35 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47604 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751534AbdFIQEd (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:04:33 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 2B2C680F91 Authentication-Results: ext-mx03.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx03.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dhowells@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 2B2C680F91 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 In-Reply-To: <1497022434.5056.4.camel@redhat.com> References: <1497022434.5056.4.camel@redhat.com> <149702046967.13949.14361137102849681738.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> To: Jeff Layton Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mszeredi@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] VFS: Differentiate mount flags (MS_*) from internal superblock flags MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <31120.1497024264.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 17:04:24 +0100 Message-ID: <31121.1497024264@warthog.procyon.org.uk> X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.27]); Fri, 09 Jun 2017 16:04:28 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jeff Layton wrote: > I guess you mean stuff like affs_fill_super which does: > > sb->s_flags |= MS_NODEV | MS_NOSUID; > > It seems like it's doing that too late to be useful. Actually, after the change, it seems nothing actually tests SB_NOSUID, SB_NODEV or SB_NOEXEC, so those bits should probably be removed. I also wonder if the internal MS_ flags (eg. MS_SUBMOUNT) should be removed from the UAPI header. David