[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YMtXshP8G4RZvr4m@alley>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 16:09:54 +0200
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Jia He <justin.he@....com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
"Ahmed S. Darwish" <a.darwish@...utronix.de>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFCv4 2/4] lib/vsprintf.c: make '%pD' print full path for
file
On Tue 2021-06-15 23:49:50, Jia He wrote:
> Previously, the specifier '%pD' is for printing dentry name of struct
> file. It may not be perfect (by default it only prints one component.)
>
> As suggested by Linus at [1]:
> A dentry has a parent, but at the same time, a dentry really does
> inherently have "one name" (and given just the dentry pointers, you
> can't show mount-related parenthood, so in many ways the "show just
> one name" makes sense for "%pd" in ways it doesn't necessarily for
> "%pD"). But while a dentry arguably has that "one primary component",
> a _file_ is certainly not exclusively about that last component.
>
> Hence change the behavior of '%pD' to print full path of that file.
>
> Precision is never going to be used with %p (or any of its kernel
> extensions) if -Wformat is turned on.
> .
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wimsMqGdzik187YWLb-ru+iktb4MYbMQG1rnZ81dXYFVg@mail.gmail.com/
>
> Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Jia He <justin.he@....com>
> --- a/lib/vsprintf.c
> +++ b/lib/vsprintf.c
> @@ -920,13 +921,41 @@ char *dentry_name(char *buf, char *end, const struct dentry *d, struct printf_sp
> }
>
> static noinline_for_stack
> -char *file_dentry_name(char *buf, char *end, const struct file *f,
> +char *file_d_path_name(char *buf, char *end, const struct file *f,
> struct printf_spec spec, const char *fmt)
> {
> + const struct path *path;
> + char *p;
> + int prepend_len, reserved_size, dpath_len;
> +
> if (check_pointer(&buf, end, f, spec))
> return buf;
>
> - return dentry_name(buf, end, f->f_path.dentry, spec, fmt);
> + path = &f->f_path;
> + if (check_pointer(&buf, end, path, spec))
> + return buf;
> +
> + p = d_path_unsafe(path, buf, end - buf, &prepend_len);
> +
> + /* Calculate the full d_path length, ignoring the tail '\0' */
> + dpath_len = end - buf - prepend_len - 1;
> +
> + reserved_size = max_t(int, dpath_len, spec.field_width);
"reserved_size" is kind of confusing. "dpath_widen_len" or just "widen_len"
look much more obvious.
The below comments are not bad. But they still made me thing about it
more than I wanted ;-) I wonder if it following is better:
> + /* case 1: no space at all, forward the buf with reserved size */
> + if (buf >= end)
> + return buf + reserved_size;
/* Case 1: Already started past the buffer. Just forward @buf. */
if (buf >= end)
return buf + widen_len;
> +
> + /*
> + * case 2: small scratch space for long d_path name. The space
> + * [buf,end] has been filled with truncated string. Hence use the
> + * full dpath_len for further string widening.
> + */
> + if (prepend_len < 0)
> + return widen_string(buf + dpath_len, dpath_len, end, spec);
/*
* Case 2: The entire remaining space of the buffer filled by
* the truncated path. Still need to get moved right when
* the filed width is greather than the full path length.
*/
if (prepend_len < 0)
return widen_string(buf + dpath_len, dpath_len, end, spec);
> + /* case3: space is big enough */
> + return string_nocheck(buf, end, p, spec);
/*
* Case 3: The full path is printed at the end of the buffer.
* Print it at the right location in the same buffer.
*/
return string_nocheck(buf, end, p, spec);
> }
> #ifdef CONFIG_BLOCK
> static noinline_for_stack
In each case, I am happy that it was possible to simplify the logic.
I got lost several times in the previous version.
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists