linux-kernel - Re: file_inode() vs f

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 7 Oct 2013 20:03:57 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Andre Richter <andre.o.richter@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: file_inode() vs f_mapping->host

On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 01:08:09PM +0200, Andre Richter wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> in this thread ( https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/17/128 ), Al Viro argues
> that file_inode() is not equal to f_mapping->host in certain cases.
> 
> I'm asking, because in arch/x86/kernel/msr.c, msr_seek() retrieves the
> inode via f_mapping while one function later, msr_read() uses
> file_inode().
> Is this on purpose?

Both of those should use file_inode(), but in that case both expressions
yield the same value.  And no, it's not on purpose in case of msr.c -
just a historical accident.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/