[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 13:58:07 -0400
From: Josef Sipek <jsipek@....cs.sunysb.edu>
To: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...e.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, John Johansen <jjohansen@...e.de>,
Jan Blunck <jblunck@...e.de>, Erez Zadok <ezk@...sunysb.edu>,
"Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" <jsipek@...sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: [RFC 04/10] Temporary struct vfs_lookup in file_permission
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 07:16:26PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> Create a temporary struct vfs_lookup in file_permission() instead of
> passing a NULL value.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <ag@...tbits.at>
>
> ---
> fs/namei.c | 11 ++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/fs/namei.c
> +++ b/fs/namei.c
> @@ -292,14 +292,15 @@ int vfs_permission(struct vfs_lookup *lo
> *
> * Used to check for read/write/execute permissions on an already opened
> * file.
> - *
> - * Note:
> - * Do not use this function in new code. All access checks should
> - * be done using vfs_permission().
Should this comment be removed?
> */
> int file_permission(struct file *file, int mask)
> {
> - return permission(file->f_path.dentry->d_inode, mask, NULL);
> + struct vfs_lookup lookup;
> +
> + lookup.path = file->f_path;
> + lookup.flags = 0;
I tend to find this little bit cleaner:
struct vfs_lookup lookup = {
.path = file->f_path,
.flags = 0,
};
> +
> + return permission(file->f_path.dentry->d_inode, mask, &lookup);
> }
>
> /*
--
Humans were created by water to transport it upward.
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists