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

[Paul Moore]

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 9:42 PM dancol <dancol@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2021-01-06 21:09, Paul Moore wrote:
> > 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