[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201005272246.AFJ57327.SMFOOOLQFHVFtJ@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 22:46:35 +0900
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: adobriyan@...il.com, miklos@...redi.hu
Cc: viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, john.johansen@...onical.com,
penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] vfs: sanitize __d_path()
Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> Why would they want to do it (which means taking locks again and
> potential incoherence)?
> The information is right there, ship it upwards:
>
> + if (deleted)
> + *deleted = 0;
> spin_lock(&vfsmount_lock);
> prepend(&end, &buflen, "\0", 1);
> - if (d_unlinked(dentry) &&
> - (prepend(&end, &buflen, " (deleted)", 10) != 0))
> - goto Elong;
> + if (d_unlinked(dentry) && deleted)
> + *deleted = 1;
>
> "(deleted)" as interface sucks, we can't change it,
> at least, let's make in-kernel interface correct.
We don't need vfsmount_lock for d_unlinked(), do we?
Then, I think we can do
+ if (deleted)
+ *deleted = d_unlinked(dentry);
spin_lock(&vfsmount_lock);
- prepend(&end, &buflen, "\0", 1);
+ prepend(&end, &buflen, "", 1);
- if (d_unlinked(dentry) &&
- (prepend(&end, &buflen, " (deleted)", 10) != 0))
- goto Elong;
--
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