On 2026-05-21 22:53 -0500, Eric Biggers wrote: > 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.
Thank you, I very much agree. _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
