[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200417130135.GB5053@lst.de>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 15:01:35 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, yuyufen@...wei.com, tj@...nel.org,
bvanassche@....org, tytso@....edu, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] bdi: add a ->dev_name field to struct
backing_dev_info
On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 10:59:09AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > - dev = device_create_vargs(bdi_class, NULL, MKDEV(0, 0), bdi, fmt, args);
> > + vsnprintf(bdi->dev_name, sizeof(bdi->dev_name), fmt, args);
> > + dev = device_create(bdi_class, NULL, MKDEV(0, 0), bdi, bdi->dev_name);
> > if (IS_ERR(dev))
> > return PTR_ERR(dev);
> >
>
> This can have a sideeffect not only bdi->dev_name will be truncated to 64
> chars (which generally doesn't matter) but possibly also kobject name will
> be truncated in the same way. Which may have user visible effects. E.g.
> for fs/vboxsf 64 chars need not be enough. So shouldn't we rather do it the
> other way around - i.e., let device_create_vargs() create the device name
> and then copy to bdi->dev_name whatever fits?
I think having them mismatch is worse, as the kobject name is what
people look for. Hans, do you know what fc->source typicall contains
and if there is much of a problem if it gets truncated/ Can we switch
to something else that is guranteed to be 64 charaters or less for the
bdi name?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists