We don't need acls on xattr inodes because they are not directly
accessible from user mode.

Besides lockdep complains about recursive locking of xattr_sem as seen
below.

  =============================================
  [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
  4.11.0-rc8+ #402 Not tainted
  ---------------------------------------------
  python/1894 is trying to acquire lock:
   (&ei->xattr_sem){++++..}, at: [<ffffffff804878a6>] ext4_xattr_get+0x66/0x270

  but task is already holding lock:
   (&ei->xattr_sem){++++..}, at: [<ffffffff80489500>] ext4_xattr_set_handle+0xa0/0x5d0

  other info that might help us debug this:
   Possible unsafe locking scenario:

         CPU0
         ----
    lock(&ei->xattr_sem);
    lock(&ei->xattr_sem);

   *** DEADLOCK ***

   May be due to missing lock nesting notation

  3 locks held by python/1894:
   #0:  (sb_writers#10){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffff803d829f>] mnt_want_write+0x1f/0x50
   #1:  (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#15){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff803dda27>] vfs_setxattr+0x57/0xb0
   #2:  (&ei->xattr_sem){++++..}, at: [<ffffffff80489500>] ext4_xattr_set_handle+0xa0/0x5d0

  stack backtrace:
  CPU: 0 PID: 1894 Comm: python Not tainted 4.11.0-rc8+ #402
  Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
  Call Trace:
   dump_stack+0x67/0x99
   __lock_acquire+0x5f3/0x1830
   lock_acquire+0xb5/0x1d0
   down_read+0x2f/0x60
   ext4_xattr_get+0x66/0x270
   ext4_get_acl+0x43/0x1e0
   get_acl+0x72/0xf0
   posix_acl_create+0x5e/0x170
   ext4_init_acl+0x21/0xc0
   __ext4_new_inode+0xffd/0x16b0
   ext4_xattr_set_entry+0x5ea/0xb70
   ext4_xattr_block_set+0x1b5/0x970
   ext4_xattr_set_handle+0x351/0x5d0
   ext4_xattr_set+0x124/0x180
   ext4_xattr_user_set+0x34/0x40
   __vfs_setxattr+0x66/0x80
   __vfs_setxattr_noperm+0x69/0x1c0
   vfs_setxattr+0xa2/0xb0
   setxattr+0x129/0x160
   path_setxattr+0x87/0xb0
   SyS_setxattr+0xf/0x20
   entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x18/0xad
Signed-off-by: Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>