Re: [PATCH v13 2/4] fs: add LSM-supporting anon-inode interface

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 9:42 PM dancol [off-list ref] wrote:

On 2021-01-06 21:09, Paul Moore wrote:

quoted

Is it necessary to pass both the context_inode pointer and the secure
boolean?  It seems like if context_inode is non-NULL then one could
assume that a secure anonymous inode was requested; is there ever
going to be a case where this is not true?

The converse isn't true though: it makes sense to ask for a secure inode
with a NULL context inode.

Having looked at patch 3/4 and 4/4 I just realized that and was coming
back to update my comments :)

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com