From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Aneesh Kumar K. V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] vfs: Add name to file handle conversion support
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 10:45:37 +0530
Message-ID: <87vddpn952.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <1266558149-11460-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<1266558149-11460-2-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<3E089F64-DC5C-43EA-8A98-B6CB40EB669F@sun.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: hch@infradead.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@sun.com>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from e28smtp06.in.ibm.com ([122.248.162.6]:54337 "EHLO
	e28smtp06.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751093Ab0BVFPl (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 22 Feb 2010 00:15:41 -0500
Received: from d28relay01.in.ibm.com (d28relay01.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.58])
	by e28smtp06.in.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o1M5FduD025537
	for <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 10:45:39 +0530
Received: from d28av04.in.ibm.com (d28av04.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.66])
	by d28relay01.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id o1M5Fd9h2904190
	for <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 10:45:39 +0530
Received: from d28av04.in.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1])
	by d28av04.in.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id o1M5FcAh019451
	for <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:15:39 +1100
In-Reply-To: <3E089F64-DC5C-43EA-8A98-B6CB40EB669F@sun.com>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 11:15:33 -0700, Andreas Dilger <adilger@sun.com> wrote:
> On 2010-02-18, at 22:42, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> > +static int do_sys_name_to_handle(const char __user *name,
> > +				struct file_handle *handle)
> > +{
> > +	/* we ask for a non connected handle */
> > +	retval = exportfs_encode_fh(path.dentry, (struct fid *)f_handle,
> > +				&handle_size,  0);
> > +	if (handle_size < handle->handle_size) {
> > +		if (copy_to_user(handle->f_handle, f_handle,
> > +					handle_size*sizeof(u32)))
> > +			retval = -EFAULT;
> 
> Shouldn't this be "handle_size <= handle->handle_size"?


Yes. Will fix in the next iteration.

> 
> > +SYSCALL_DEFINE2(name_to_handle, const char __user *, name,
> > +		struct file_handle __user *, handle)
> > +{
> > +	ret = do_sys_name_to_handle(name, &f_handle);
> > +	if (copy_to_user(&handle->handle_type,
> > +			&f_handle.handle_type, sizeof(f_handle.handle_type)) ||
> > +		copy_to_user(&handle->handle_size,
> > +			&f_handle.handle_size, sizeof(f_handle.handle_size)))
> 
> It seems strange to do the copy_to_user() of f_handle in  
> do_sys_name_to_handle(), but the handle_size and handle_type in  
> name_to_handle()?  Is there a reason it was split this way?
> 

No specific reason.

-aneesh