From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Hansen Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/26] sys_mknodat(): elevate write count for vfs_mknod/create() Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 08:19:52 -0700 Message-ID: <1182784792.26162.86.camel@localhost> References: <20070622200303.82D9CC3A@kernel> <20070622200332.DCCD1884@kernel> <20070623075103.GS27954@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Dave Hansen , akpm@osdl.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, viro@ftp.linux.org.uk To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.144]:57727 "EHLO e4.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757405AbXFYPT4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:19:56 -0400 Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by e4.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l5PFJt4u030317 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:19:55 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.3) with ESMTP id l5PFJtCV520376 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:19:55 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l5PFJshP007909 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:19:55 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070623075103.GS27954@infradead.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2007-06-23 at 08:51 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > diff -puN fs/namei.c~18-24-sys-mknodat-elevate-write-count-for-vfs-mknod-create fs/namei.c > > --- lxc/fs/namei.c~18-24-sys-mknodat-elevate-write-count-for-vfs-mknod-create 2007-06-21 23:23:25.000000000 -0700 > > +++ lxc-dave/fs/namei.c 2007-06-21 23:23:25.000000000 -0700 > > @@ -1897,14 +1897,26 @@ asmlinkage long sys_mknodat(int dfd, con > > if (!IS_ERR(dentry)) { > > switch (mode & S_IFMT) { > > case 0: case S_IFREG: > > + error = mnt_want_write(nd.mnt); > > + if (error) > > + break; > > error = vfs_create(nd.dentry->d_inode,dentry,mode,&nd); > > + mnt_drop_write(nd.mnt); > > break; > > case S_IFCHR: case S_IFBLK: > > + error = mnt_want_write(nd.mnt); > > + if (error) > > + break; > > error = vfs_mknod(nd.dentry->d_inode,dentry,mode, > > new_decode_dev(dev)); > > + mnt_drop_write(nd.mnt); > > break; > > case S_IFIFO: case S_IFSOCK: > > + error = mnt_want_write(nd.mnt); > > + if (error) > > + break; > > error = vfs_mknod(nd.dentry->d_inode,dentry,mode,0); > > + mnt_drop_write(nd.mnt); > > break; > > case S_IFDIR: > > error = -EPERM; > > Should we just take the calls outside the switch statement? Yeah, that's much better. I assume we don't care whether we're getting -EROFS or -EPERM/-EINVAL for the S_IFDIR and default cases? -- Dave