All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: jjohansen@suse.de
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [RFD 1/4] Pass no useless nameidata to the create, lookup, and permission IOPs
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:13:02 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070630091302.GA21784@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070626231541.697783295@suse.de>

On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 04:15:11PM -0700, jjohansen@suse.de wrote:
> The create, lookup, and permission inode operations are all passed a
> full nameidata.  This is unfortunate because in nfsd and the mqueue
> filesystem, we must instantiate a struct nameidata but cannot provide
> all of the same information that a regular lookup would provide.  The
> unused fields take up space on the stack, but more importantly, it is
> not obvious which fields have meaningful values and which don't, and so
> things might easily break.
> 
> This patch introduces struct nameidata2 with only the fields that make
> sense independent of an actual lookup, and uses that struct in those
> places where a full nameidat is not needed.

We need something like this, but I don't quite like the way you've done
it.  First the name is wrong, it's not a nameidata anymore but a lookup
intent, so it should be named that way, struct lookup_intent.  Second
the macro hackery is more than ugly,  please keep the structures separate.
With modern gcc it might be possible to embed the lookup_intent into
the nameidata anonymously.  Also please either remove the dentry from
struct lookup_entry or from the direct argument list of the functions
and methods - there is no need to pass this one twice.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2007-06-30  9:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-06-26 23:15 [RFD 0/4] AppArmor - Don't pass NULL nameidata to vfs_create/lookup/permission IOPs jjohansen
2007-06-26 23:15 ` [RFD 1/4] Pass no useless nameidata to the create, lookup, and permission IOPs jjohansen
2007-06-27  0:11   ` Erez Zadok
2007-06-30  9:14     ` Christoph Hellwig
2007-06-30  9:13   ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2007-06-30 16:13     ` Andreas Gruenbacher
2007-06-26 23:15 ` [RFD 2/4] Never pass a NULL nameidata to vfs_create() jjohansen
2007-06-26 23:15 ` [RFD 3/4] Dont use a NULL nameidata in xattr_permission() jjohansen
2007-06-26 23:15 ` [RFD 4/4] Pass nameidata2 to permission() from nfsd_permission() jjohansen
2007-06-26 23:46 ` [RFD 0/4] AppArmor - Don't pass NULL nameidata to vfs_create/lookup/permission IOPs Trond Myklebust
2007-06-27 20:42   ` Andreas Gruenbacher
2007-06-30  9:15   ` Christoph Hellwig

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20070630091302.GA21784@infradead.org \
    --to=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=agruen@suse.de \
    --cc=jjohansen@suse.de \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.