On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 03:32:39AM +0000, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > On 05/21, Theodore Tso wrote: > > On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 01:51:08AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > You haven't sent a proposal. This is a reply to a reply to a reply of a > > > > patch. There's no justification for why f2fs is so special that it > > > > needs this. What the hell is going on? You know this is not the way to > > > > get code merged into Linux. > > > > > > None of this got properly answers, and this broken interface now landed > > > in linux-next. IT is offloading a user.* xattr which is free-form > > > user data with semantics that are weird to say it very nicely. > > > > > > All this was done against the advice in the mailing list discussion. > > > > So let me get this straight. This is a magic xattr interface which is > > not even persisted in the file system, but instead sets a 32-bit > > bitmask in the struct inode which disappears once the inode gets > > flushed from the inode stack. And it uses a generic xattr name, > > "user.fadvise". > > > > There's no way in *hell* any other file system is likely to adopt such > > a broken interface, so why didn't you just use an ioctl to set this > > magic f2fs-specific flag? > > I went this route because Android heavily restricts ioctl() permissions > and we needed broader access for this to work within the framework.
It's straightforward (2 lines I think) to update Android's SELinux policy to allow an ioctl in all domains. So that doesn't seem like a reason to not use an ioctl. In fact this is actually a reason *to* use an ioctl, as it shows that ioctls can be allowed/denied independently as needed, whereas xattrs just use the file write permission. - Eric _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
