From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
dwysocha@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfs: remove unneeded permission check from path_init
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:40:49 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121212184049.GO4939@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1355234176-767-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com>
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 08:56:16AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> When path_init is called with a valid dfd, that code checks permissions
> on the open directory fd and returns an error if the check fails. This
> permission check is redundant, however.
>
> Both callers of path_init immediately call link_path_walk afterward. The
> first thing that link_path_walk does is to check for exec permissions
> at the starting point of the path walk.
>
> In most cases, these checks are very quick, but when the dfd is for a
> file on a NFS mount with the actimeo=0, each permission check goes
> out onto the wire. The result is 2 identical ACCESS calls.
>
> Given that these codepaths are fairly "hot", I think it makes sense to
> eliminate the permission check in path_init and simply assume that the
> caller will eventually check the permissions before proceeding.
Applied, with one modification to commit message - the second paragraph
replaced with
Both callers of path_init immediately call link_path_walk afterward. The
first thing that link_path_walk does for pathnames that do not consist
only of slashes is to check for exec permissions at the starting point of
the path walk. And this check in path_init() is on the path taken only
when *name != '/' && *name != '\0'.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-12 18:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-11 13:56 [PATCH] vfs: remove unneeded permission check from path_init Jeff Layton
2012-12-12 18:40 ` Al Viro [this message]
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=20121212184049.GO4939@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=dwysocha@redhat.com \
--cc=jlayton@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).