From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D49B3C43381 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 17:35:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3F9F21874 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 17:35:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org header.i=@chromium.org header.b="DglQfmF2" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728573AbfCURfV (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Mar 2019 13:35:21 -0400 Received: from mail-ua1-f66.google.com ([209.85.222.66]:34400 "EHLO mail-ua1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726787AbfCURfV (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Mar 2019 13:35:21 -0400 Received: by mail-ua1-f66.google.com with SMTP id c6so2201289uan.1 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:35:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=TcANOQYRJqySqWQBCi+jiG/hbLxUkOBFHkNngCggkjs=; b=DglQfmF2nLfl6tSjgSOtRpLMl228Q6g4W3NNr2kOSav92yGPwuNFoLB9/wYlda/dQq +obp/0/bRbMq3zHfcHGW3CPwhht2mJcFdTKQuQDYQX1oO3DZyra2uMXFSjtViMDbIKM/ G+IaVxJ5oiEEI1uOrqtSjpm2h7qkGk4HtI5CE= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TcANOQYRJqySqWQBCi+jiG/hbLxUkOBFHkNngCggkjs=; b=YoKtgXPo9sB4RD7JmJ++Jfnei+r9nfGxroBAl1+hq8AV1cCveqnojxdxOaqKGLdStC EXfc6J+GEfiTaEa3Kvv9FuGBwWsdC0Y+2OTPrxPSLSNg3KVN2EjgOYIFRExLPQGkCLua OonUQTn72bZN6vY0ALrbjKt2wvN6m2pwS3+odnGmGm25c9Muawd3aX6g/96g9659Na0k maW+DsFDqRB5XySVOiTefO1WDpi8XuT+noqbfQGcbUKlcNEXMjQkTxfTDYyFIixbL09o aTa2BUZdlcDF7zx7MwerFYg1NbixBqLOWO00l1GGk7mh8NgKKiDW02gwbSwXam/ASxXf MtkA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVKHztzXE5zKvayz+bunD+kt0D9DcZ26tJirzLTysaTRu0R80nY ziZhTmOYZ3kU6HMk93CPCjKrtsKE56Zs/Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw/Fp83upxLeemBi0AhMwApKB/26h4I/I44qsunltgX2bK3KZgV1a1Z+I0JlTuJvpO/34Px+Q== X-Received: by 2002:a9f:3233:: with SMTP id x48mr2675429uad.89.1553189719658; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:35:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vs1-f41.google.com (mail-vs1-f41.google.com. [209.85.217.41]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l193sm1528770vsd.5.2019.03.21.10.35.18 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:35:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vs1-f41.google.com with SMTP id n4so4185469vsm.3 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:35:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a67:6983:: with SMTP id e125mr2750631vsc.222.1553189717974; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:35:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <155316885201.29437.3428987891437242750.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <155316888615.29437.17558157678296689830.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <26699.1553187790@warthog.procyon.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <26699.1553187790@warthog.procyon.org.uk> From: Kees Cook Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:35:06 -0700 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/8] vfs: Convert pstore to fs_context To: David Howells Cc: Al Viro , Anton Vorontsov , Colin Cross , Tony Luck , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , LKML Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 10:03 AM David Howells wrote: > > Kees Cook wrote: > > > Why the separation between parse and apply now? Is this due to the > > reconfigure calls? (i.e. why not call pstore_set_kmsg_bytes() in > > pstore_parse_param()? > > Because parameter parsing is now done up front, before the creation of the > superblock of the invocation of the reconfigure method - so there's still a > bunch of places that can error out before you know you're going to be > successful in creating/reconfiguring the superblock. Thanks! Makes sense. :) -- Kees Cook