[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZlbMdNiwLsLF-gp0@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 23:34:28 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
Alexander Aring <alex.aring@...il.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2] fhandle: expose u64 mount id to
name_to_handle_at(2)
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 03:28:18PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > open_by_handle_at looks up the superblock based on that identifier.
>
> The open file needs a specific mount, holding the superblock is not
> sufficient.
A strut file needs a vfsmount, yes. And it better be reachable by
the calling process. And maybe an optional restriction to a specific
mount by the caller might be useful, but I can't see how it is
required.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists