[PATCH 00/24] vfs: require filesystems to explicitly opt-in to lease support

[Amir Goldstein]

On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 7:28 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch at infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 12:06:42PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > Fair point, but it's not that hard to conceive of a situation where
> > someone inadvertantly exports cgroupfs or some similar filesystem:
>
> Sure.  But how is this worse than accidentally exporting private data
> or any other misconfiguration?
>

My POV is that it is less about security (as your question implies), and
more about correctness.

The special thing about NFS export, as opposed to, say, ksmbd, is
open by file handle, IOW, the export_operations.

I perceive this as a very strange and undesired situation when NFS
file handles do not behave as persistent file handles.

FUSE will gladly open a completely different object, sometimes
a different object type from an NFS client request after server restart.

I suppose that the same could happen with tmpfs and probably some
other fs.

This problem is old and welded into the system, but IMO adding more
kernel filesystems, which consciously export file handles that do not
survive server reboot does not serve users interests well.

One could claim that this is a bug that can be fixed by adding boot_id
to said file handles, but why fix something that nobody asked for?

cgroupfs, pidfs, nsfs, all gained open_by_handle_at() capability for
a known reason, which was NOT NFS export.

If the author of open_by_handle_at() support (i.e. brauner) does not
wish to imply that those fs should be exported to NFS, why object?

We could have the opt-in/out of NFS export fixes per EXPORT_OP_
flags and we could even think of allowing admin to make this decision
per vfsmount (e.g. for cgroupfs).

In any case, I fail to see how objecting to the possibility of NFS export
opt-out serves anyone.

Thanks,
Amir.