[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250212040604.GN1977892@ZenIV>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 04:06:04 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>,
Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...nel.org>,
Anna Schumaker <anna@...nel.org>,
Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...nel.org>,
Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
audit@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] VFS: add common error checks to
lookup_one_qstr_excl()
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 02:45:04PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Al Viro wrote:
> I do see some value in the simplicity of this approach, though maybe not
> as much value as you see. But the above uses inode_lock_share(), rather
> than the nested version, so lockdep will complain.
IDGI... It doesn't grab any ->i_rwsem inside that one, so what's there to
complain about? And in that case it returns with no locks held, so...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists