linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v3 07/15] fsnotify: pass arguments of fsnotify() in struct fsnotify_event

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Thu, 8 Jul 2021 13:37:11 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:     Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...labora.com>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Khazhismel Kumykov <khazhy@...gle.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, kernel@...labora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/15] fsnotify: pass arguments of fsnotify() in
 struct fsnotify_event_info

On Thu 08-07-21 14:09:43, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 1:43 PM Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
> > On Tue 29-06-21 15:10:27, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/fsnotify.h b/include/linux/fsnotify.h
> > > index f8acddcf54fb..8c2c681b4495 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/fsnotify.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/fsnotify.h
> > > @@ -30,7 +30,10 @@ static inline void fsnotify_name(struct inode *dir, __u32 mask,
> > >                                struct inode *child,
> > >                                const struct qstr *name, u32 cookie)
> > >  {
> > > -     fsnotify(mask, child, FSNOTIFY_EVENT_INODE, dir, name, NULL, cookie);
> > > +     __fsnotify(mask, &(struct fsnotify_event_info) {
> > > +                     .data = child, .data_type = FSNOTIFY_EVENT_INODE,
> > > +                     .dir = dir, .name = name, .cookie = cookie,
> > > +                     });
> > >  }
> >
> > Hmm, maybe we could have a macro initializer like:
> >
> > #define FSNOTIFY_EVENT_INFO(data, data_type, dir, name, inode, cookie)  \
> >         (struct fsnotify_event_info) {                                  \
> >                 .data = (data), .data_type = (data_type), .dir = (dir), \
> >                 .name = (name), .inode = (inode), .cookie = (cookie)}
> >
> > Then we'd have:
> >         __fsnotify(mask, &FSNOTIFY_EVENT_INFO(child, FSNOTIFY_EVENT_INODE,
> >                                 dir, name, NULL, cookie));
> >
> > Which looks a bit nicer to me. What do you think guys?
> >
> 
> Sure, looks good.
> But I think it would be even better to have different "wrapper defines" like
> FSNOTIFY_NAME_EVENT_INFO() will less irrelevant arguments.

If we don't overdo it, I agree :) I mean if we end up with a different
helper for each site creating this structure, I'm not sure it helps much...

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR