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 Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 09:14:06AM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 10:42:48PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 04:20:13PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > > You're still think of it the wrong way.  If we do have file systems
> > > > that break the original exportfs semantics we need to fix that, and
> > > > something like a "stable handles" flag will work well for that.  But
> > > > a totally arbitrary "is exportable" flag is total nonsense.
> > > 
> > > File handles can legitimately be conceptualized independently of
> > > exporting a filesystem. If we wanted to tear those concepts apart
> > > implementation wise we could.
> > > 
> > > It is complete nonsense to expect the kernel to support exporting any
> > > arbitrary internal filesystem or to not support file handles at all.
> > 
> > You are going even further down the path of entirely missing the point
> > (or the two points by now).
> 
> You're arguing for the sake of arguing imho. You're getting exactly what
> we're all saying as evidenced by the last paragraph in your mail: it is
> entirely what this whole thing is about.

I can't even parse what you mean.  And no, I hate these stupid
arguments, and I have much better things to do than dragging this on.

> > If a file systems meets all technical requirements of being nfsd
> > exportable and the users asks for it, it is not our job to make an
> > arbitrary policy decision to say no.
> 
> This is an entirely irrelevant point because we're talking about
> cgroupfs, nsfs, and pidfs. And they don't meet this criteria. cgroupfs
> is a _local resource management filesystem_ why would we ever want to
> support exporting it over the network. It allows to break the local
> delegation model as I've explained. cgroupfs shows _local processes_. So
> a server will see completely nonsensical PID identifiers listed in
> cgroup files and it can fsck around with processes in a remote system.

None of that is a technical argument.  The lack of stable file handles
would be one, and I think we came to the conclusion yesterday that
this is the case.
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.