linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/8] kernfs: Add API to generate relative kernfs path

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:	Wed, 9 Dec 2015 17:36:51 -0500
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, adityakali@...gle.com,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, lxc-devel@...ts.linuxcontainers.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, lizefan@...wei.com, hannes@...xchg.org,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] kernfs: Add API to generate relative kernfs path

Hey,

On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 10:13:27PM +0000, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> we can rename kn_root to from here if you think that's clearer (and
> change the order here as well).

I think it'd be better for them to be consistent and in the same order
- the target and then the optional base.

> > Was converting the path functions to return
> > length too much work?  If so, that's fine but please explain what
> > decisions were made.
> 
> Yes, I had replied saying:
> 
>  |I can change that, but the callers right now don't re-try with
>  |larger buffer anyway, so this would actually complicate them just
>  |a smidgeon.  Would you want them changed to do that?  (pr_cont_kernfs_path
>  |right now writes into a static char[] for instance)
> 
> I can still make that change if you like.

Oops, sorry I forgot about that.  The reason why kernfs_path() is
written the current way was me being lazy.  While I think it'd be
better to make the functions behave like normal string handling
functions if we're extending it, I don't think it's that important.
If it's easy, please go ahead.  If not, we can get back to it later
when necessary.

> > I skimmed through the series and spotted several other review points
> > which didn't get addressed.  Can you please go over the previous
> > review cycle and address the review points?
> 
> I did go through every email twice, once while making changes (one
> branch per response) and once while making changelog for each patch,
> sorry about whatever I missed.  I'll go through each again.

The other chunk I noticed was inline conversions of internal functions
which didn't seem to belong to the patch.  I asked whether those were
stray chunks.  Maybe the comment was too buried to notice?  Anyways,
that part actually causes conflicts when applying to cgroup/for-4.5.

There are a couple more things.

* Can you please put the ns related decls after the regular cgroup
  stuff in cgroup.h?

* I think I might need to edit the documentation anyway but it'd be
  great if you can make the namespace section more in line with the
  rest of the documentation - e.g. s/CGroup/cgroup/ and more
  structured sectioning.

At this point, it all generally looks good to me.  Let's get the
nits out of the way and merge it.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/