Thread (45 messages) 45 messages, 7 authors, 2019-07-19

Re: [PATCH v9 05/10] namei: O_BENEATH-style path resolution flags

From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Date: 2019-07-12 12:40:00
Also in: linux-alpha, linux-arch, linux-arm-kernel, linux-fsdevel, linux-kselftest, linux-mips, linux-s390, linux-sh, linuxppc-dev, lkml, sparclinux

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 08:57:45PM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
quoted
quoted
@@ -2350,9 +2400,11 @@ static const char *path_init(struct nameidata *nd, unsigned flags)
 			s = ERR_PTR(error);
 		return s;
 	}
-	error = dirfd_path_init(nd);
-	if (unlikely(error))
-		return ERR_PTR(error);
+	if (likely(!nd->path.mnt)) {
Is that a weird way of saying "if we hadn't already called dirfd_path_init()"?
Yes. I did it to be more consistent with the other "have we got the
root" checks elsewhere. Is there another way you'd prefer I do it?
"Have we got the root" checks are inevitable evil; here you are making the
control flow in a single function hard to follow.

I *think* what you are doing is
	absolute pathname, no LOOKUP_BENEATH:
		set_root
		error = nd_jump_root(nd)
	else
		error = dirfd_path_init(nd)
	return unlikely(error) ? ERR_PTR(error) : s;
which should be a lot easier to follow (not to mention shorter), but I might
be missing something in all of that.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help