[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87y2jja9c2.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2020 12:43:09 -0600
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Qian Cai <cai@...hat.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] fs: Fix memory leaks in do_renameat2() error paths
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> writes:
> On 10/30/20 4:22 PM, Al Viro wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 02:33:11PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 10/30/20 12:49 PM, Al Viro wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 12:46:26PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> See other reply, it's being posted soon, just haven't gotten there yet
>>>>> and it wasn't ready.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a prep patch so we can call do_renameat2 and pass in a filename
>>>>> instead. The intent is not to have any functional changes in that prep
>>>>> patch. But once we can pass in filenames instead of user pointers, it's
>>>>> usable from io_uring.
>>>>
>>>> You do realize that pathname resolution is *NOT* offloadable to helper
>>>> threads, I hope...
>>>
>>> How so? If we have all the necessary context assigned, what's preventing
>>> it from working?
>>
>> Semantics of /proc/self/..., for starters (and things like /proc/mounts, etc.
>> *do* pass through that, /dev/stdin included)
>
> Don't we just need ->thread_pid for that to work?
Are you proposing changing the pid of a kernel thread to get that?
Currently it is an invariant in the kernel that pids do not change.
Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists