[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200406031602.GR23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2020 04:16:02 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
David Miller <davem@...hat.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
Wenbo Zhang <ethercflow@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, bgregg@...flix.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] bpf: Add d_path helper
On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 11:08:28AM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> if we limit it just to task context I think it would still be
> helpful for us:
>
> if (in_task())
> d_path..
>
> perhaps even create a d_path version without d_dname callback
> if that'd be still a problem, because it seems to be there mainly
> for special filesystems..?
IDGI...
1) d_path(), by definition, is dependent upon the
process' root - the same <mount,dentry> pair will yield
different strings if caller is chrooted. You *can't* just
use a random process' root
2) we are *NOT* making rename_lock and mount_lock
disable interrupts. Not happening.
So it has to be process-synchronous anyway. Could you describe
where that thing is going to be callable?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists