Re: [PATCH -next 0/2] lsm: Change inode_setattr() to take struct

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 07:55:17AM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> Which LSM(s) do you think ought to be deprecated?

I have no idea.  But what I want is less weirdo things messing with
VFS semantics.

>
> I only see one that I
> might consider a candidate. As for weird behavior, that's what LSMs are
> for, and the really weird ones proposed (e.g. pathname character set limitations)
> (and excepting for BPF, of course) haven't gotten far.

They haven't gotten far for a reason usually.  Trying to sneak things in
through the back door is exactly what is the problem with LSMs.

> 
---end quoted text---