linux-kernel - Re: Re: [PATCH RFC v3 3/3] fuse: use the newly created helper functions

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aWCrRKV5zWW2vitk@fedora.fritz.box>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2026 08:20:53 +0100
From: Horst Birthelmer <horst@...thelmer.de>
To: Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@...il.com>
Cc: horst@...thelmer.com, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, 
	Bernd Schubert <bschubert@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Horst Birthelmer <hbirthelmer@....com>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH RFC v3 3/3] fuse: use the newly created helper
 functions

On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 02:19:10PM -0800, Joanne Koong wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 6:23 AM <horst@...thelmer.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Horst Birthelmer <hbirthelmer@....com>
> >
> > new helper functions are:
> > - fuse_getattr_args_fill()
> > - fuse_open_args_fill()
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Horst Birthelmer <hbirthelmer@....com>
> > ---
> >  fs/fuse/dir.c  | 9 +--------
> >  fs/fuse/file.c | 9 +--------
> >  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/fuse/dir.c b/fs/fuse/dir.c
> > index 4b6b3d2758ff..ca8b69282c60 100644
> > --- a/fs/fuse/dir.c
> > +++ b/fs/fuse/dir.c
> > @@ -1493,14 +1493,7 @@ static int fuse_do_getattr(struct mnt_idmap *idmap, struct inode *inode,
> >                 inarg.getattr_flags |= FUSE_GETATTR_FH;
> >                 inarg.fh = ff->fh;
> >         }
> > -       args.opcode = FUSE_GETATTR;
> > -       args.nodeid = get_node_id(inode);
> > -       args.in_numargs = 1;
> > -       args.in_args[0].size = sizeof(inarg);
> > -       args.in_args[0].value = &inarg;
> > -       args.out_numargs = 1;
> > -       args.out_args[0].size = sizeof(outarg);
> > -       args.out_args[0].value = &outarg;
> > +       fuse_getattr_args_fill(&args, get_node_id(inode), &inarg, &outarg);
> >         err = fuse_simple_request(fm, &args);
> >         if (!err) {
> >                 if (fuse_invalid_attr(&outarg.attr) ||
> > diff --git a/fs/fuse/file.c b/fs/fuse/file.c
> > index 676f6bfde9f8..c0375b32967d 100644
> > --- a/fs/fuse/file.c
> > +++ b/fs/fuse/file.c
> > @@ -73,14 +73,7 @@ static int fuse_send_open(struct fuse_mount *fm, u64 nodeid,
> >                 inarg.open_flags |= FUSE_OPEN_KILL_SUIDGID;
> >         }
> >
> > -       args.opcode = opcode;
> > -       args.nodeid = nodeid;
> > -       args.in_numargs = 1;
> > -       args.in_args[0].size = sizeof(inarg);
> > -       args.in_args[0].value = &inarg;
> > -       args.out_numargs = 1;
> > -       args.out_args[0].size = sizeof(*outargp);
> > -       args.out_args[0].value = outargp;
> > +       fuse_open_args_fill(&args, nodeid, opcode, &inarg, outargp);
> >
> >         return fuse_simple_request(fm, &args);
> >  }
> >
> 
> This is a very minor nit but imo the split is a bit nicer if patch 2/3
> is this patch with your helper changes:
> 
> +/*
> + * Helper function to initialize fuse_args for OPEN/OPENDIR operations
> + */
> +void fuse_open_args_fill(struct fuse_args *args, u64 nodeid, int opcode,
> + struct fuse_open_in *inarg, struct fuse_open_out *outarg)
> +{
> + args->opcode = opcode;
> ...
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Helper function to initialize fuse_args for GETATTR operations
> + */
> +void fuse_getattr_args_fill(struct fuse_args *args, u64 nodeid,
> +     struct fuse_getattr_in *inarg,
> +     struct fuse_attr_out *outarg)
> +{
> + args->opcode = FUSE_GETATTR;
> ...
> +}
> +
> 
> and then patch 3 is your open+getattr changes. That way, it's easier
> to see that the changes in this patch to fuse_do_getattr() and
> fuse_send_open() have no functional changes in logic.

My rational here was, that if people don't like the changes to those functions
I can easily backtrack by just not providing this patch, so basically laziness.

I can easily change that.

Thanks for your explanation.

> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Joanne
> > --
> > 2.51.0
> >