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

[dancol]

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.