Re: [PATCH 00/24] vfs: require filesystems to explicitly opt-in to lease support
Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.gfs2,dev.linux.lists.ntfs3,dev.linux.lists.ocfs2-devel,dev.linux.lists.v9fs,net.sourceforge.lists.linux-f2fs-devel,org.infradead.lists.linux-mtd,org.kernel.vger.ceph-devel,org.kernel.vger.linux-btrfs,org.kernel.vger.linux-cifs,org.kernel.vger.linux-doc,org.kernel.vger.linux-ext4,org.kernel.vger.linux-fsdevel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-nfs,org.kernel.vger.linux-nilfs,org.kernel.vger.linux-unionfs,org.kernel.vger.linux-xfs,org.kvack.linux-mm,org.ozlabs.lists.linux-erofs |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 09:54:15AM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote: > I don't think we want to expose cgroupfs via NFS that's super weird. > It's like remote partial resource management and it would be very > strange if a remote process suddenly would be able to move things around > in the cgroup tree. So I would prefer to not do this. > > So my preference would be to really sever file handles from the export > mechanism so that we can allow stuff like pidfs and nsfs and cgroupfs to > use file handles via name_to_handle_at() and open_by_handle_at() without > making them exportable. I don't understand this discussion. If someone really wants to expose say cgroupfs to the network they'll find a way, be that using a userspace nfs server, samba, 9p or a custom fuse thing. What's the benefit of explicitly prohibiting a knfsd export? (not that I think any of this makes much sense to start with)