Hi Christian, On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 11:46 AM Mickaël Salaün <mic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 02:59:17PM -0700, Song Liu wrote: > > Hi Christian, Mickaël, and folks, > > > > Could you please share your comments on this version? Does this > > look sane? > > This looks good to me but we need to know what is the acceptable next > step to support RCU. If we can go with another _rcu helper, I'm good > with the current approach, otherwise we need to figure out a way to > leverage the current helper to make it compatible with callers being in > a RCU read-side critical section while leveraging safe path walk (i.e. > several calls to path_walk_parent). Could you please share your suggestions on this topic? RCU protected path walk out of fs/ seems controversial in multiple ways. Do we have to let this set wait indefinitely for a solution of RCU protected path walk? I would like to highlight that this set doesn't add any persistent APIs. path_walk_parent() is not in the UAPI, nor exported. If a newer and better API is created, we can refactor bpf and landlock code and deprecate path_walk_parent(). Thanks, Song
