linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs: Rename the parameter of mnt_get_write

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f6a9c6ef-1fd8-41d2-8f6a-396b6b191f97@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 09:01:56 +0800
From: Zizhi Wo <wozizhi@...weicloud.com>
To: Zizhi Wo <wozizhi@...weicloud.com>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
 brauner@...nel.org, jack@...e.cz, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: yangerkun@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: Rename the parameter of mnt_get_write_access()

Hello!

There are currently two possible approaches to this patch.
The first is to directly change the declaration, which would be
straightforward and involve minimal modifications.

However, per Al Viro's suggestion — that "mnt for vfsmount, m for mount" 
is an informal convention. This is in line with what the current
patch does, although I understand Jan Kara might feel that the scope of 
the changes is a bit large.

I would appreciate any suggestions or guidance on how to proceed. So
friendly ping...

在 2025/5/16 11:21, Zizhi Wo 写道:
> From: Zizhi Wo <wozizhi@...wei.com>
> 
> Rename the parameter in mnt_get_write_access() from "m" to "mnt" for
> consistency between declaration and implementation.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zizhi Wo <wozizhi@...wei.com>
> ---
>   fs/namespace.c | 14 +++++++-------
>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/namespace.c b/fs/namespace.c
> index 1b466c54a357..b1b679433ab3 100644
> --- a/fs/namespace.c
> +++ b/fs/namespace.c
> @@ -483,7 +483,7 @@ static int mnt_is_readonly(struct vfsmount *mnt)
>    */
>   /**
>    * mnt_get_write_access - get write access to a mount without freeze protection
> - * @m: the mount on which to take a write
> + * @mnt: the mount on which to take a write
>    *
>    * This tells the low-level filesystem that a write is about to be performed to
>    * it, and makes sure that writes are allowed (mnt it read-write) before
> @@ -491,13 +491,13 @@ static int mnt_is_readonly(struct vfsmount *mnt)
>    * frozen. When the write operation is finished, mnt_put_write_access() must be
>    * called. This is effectively a refcount.
>    */
> -int mnt_get_write_access(struct vfsmount *m)
> +int mnt_get_write_access(struct vfsmount *mnt)
>   {
> -	struct mount *mnt = real_mount(m);
> +	struct mount *m = real_mount(mnt);
>   	int ret = 0;
>   
>   	preempt_disable();
> -	mnt_inc_writers(mnt);
> +	mnt_inc_writers(m);
>   	/*
>   	 * The store to mnt_inc_writers must be visible before we pass
>   	 * MNT_WRITE_HOLD loop below, so that the slowpath can see our
> @@ -505,7 +505,7 @@ int mnt_get_write_access(struct vfsmount *m)
>   	 */
>   	smp_mb();
>   	might_lock(&mount_lock.lock);
> -	while (READ_ONCE(mnt->mnt.mnt_flags) & MNT_WRITE_HOLD) {
> +	while (READ_ONCE(m->mnt.mnt_flags) & MNT_WRITE_HOLD) {
>   		if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT)) {
>   			cpu_relax();
>   		} else {
> @@ -530,8 +530,8 @@ int mnt_get_write_access(struct vfsmount *m)
>   	 * read-only.
>   	 */
>   	smp_rmb();
> -	if (mnt_is_readonly(m)) {
> -		mnt_dec_writers(mnt);
> +	if (mnt_is_readonly(mnt)) {
> +		mnt_dec_writers(m);
>   		ret = -EROFS;
>   	}
>   	preempt_enable();