From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/17] clean up readlinks
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 03:17:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160928021727.GN19539@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOssrKdM2fzKypNJ-b+7wdyp4ZJ9t8hE1_8brKVg5WCTZ-TbOA@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 11:38:33AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > I have no problem with "let's get rid of generic_readlink" - not that
> > it bought us much, but sure, if you want to have decision made based upon
> > the combination of flags, let's do it. Just make NULL ->readlink + non-NULL
> > ->get_link() mean generic_readlink(), and we are done.
>
> Indeed. Except it really should be the other way round:
>
> - .get_link always returning the symlink body
> - only proc setting .jump_link to do its thing
> - RIP .readlink
> But that's an extra branch in the symlink following. I was worried
> about that and hence gone for the unification of the two.
Symlink traversal is a much hotter path than readlink() would ever be.
What's more, we do have jumps on normal symlink traversal - after all,
absolute symlinks are exactly that; it's "jump to root, then traverse
the following sequence of components". So having ->get_link() that
includes jumps is not that much of a stretch (note that it could both
jump and return a relative pathname to traverse after that; none of the
procfs-style ones do that, but there's no reason to prohibit that).
What I'd prefer is
* it's a symlink iff it has ->get_link()
* readlink(2) on a symlink is normally just using generic_readlink()
* that can be overridden by supplying a ->readlink() method.
* the first time readlink() hits a symlink it will check both
->get_link() and ->readlink() presence. Then, if it's a normal symlink,
the inode will get marked as such and all subsequent calls will just call
generic_readlink(). IOW, I would go for
if (unlikely(!marked)) {
if ->readlink is present
call ->readlink and return
if ->get_link is absent
fail
mark
}
call generic_readlink
> Yeah. We can do your above suggestion, it's certainly less brittle.
> But I think it's rather confusing, having ->get_link normally do
> readlink, except for proc, where readlink is done by ->readlink.
->readlink() is just an override for the cases when readlink(2) wants
to fake something (or, as in case of AFS ugliness, is used on non-symlinks).
The primary function of symlinks is traversal, not readlink...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-28 2:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-12 19:29 [PATCH 00/17] clean up readlinks Miklos Szeredi
2016-09-12 19:29 ` [PATCH 01/17] bad_inode: add missing i_op initializers Miklos Szeredi
2016-09-12 19:29 ` [PATCH 02/17] ovl: use generic_readlink Miklos Szeredi
2016-09-12 19:29 ` [PATCH 03/17] proc/self: " Miklos Szeredi
2016-09-12 19:29 ` [PATCH 04/17] afs: " Miklos Szeredi
2016-09-12 19:29 ` [PATCH 05/17] bad_inode: " Miklos Szeredi
2016-09-12 19:29 ` [PATCH 06/17] vfs: remove page_readlink() Miklos Szeredi
2016-09-12 19:29 ` [PATCH 07/17] vfs: add is_following_link() helper Miklos Szeredi
2016-09-12 19:29 ` [PATCH 08/17] proc: merge proc_pid_readlink() into proc_pid_get_link() Miklos Szeredi
2016-09-12 19:29 ` [PATCH 09/17] proc: merge proc_ns_readlink() into proc_ns_get_link() Miklos Szeredi
2016-09-12 19:29 ` [PATCH 10/17] nsfs: clean up ns_get_name() interface Miklos Szeredi
2016-09-12 19:29 ` [PATCH 11/17] vfs: replace calling i_op->readlink with vfs_readlink() Miklos Szeredi
2016-09-12 19:29 ` [PATCH 12/17] vfs: remove ".readlink = generic_readlink" assignments Miklos Szeredi
2016-09-12 19:29 ` [PATCH 13/17] vfs: remove unused i_op->readlink Miklos Szeredi
2016-09-12 19:29 ` [PATCH 14/17] vfs: remove unused generic_readlink() Miklos Szeredi
2016-09-12 19:29 ` [PATCH 15/17] vfs: add vfs_get_link() helper Miklos Szeredi
2016-09-12 19:29 ` [PATCH 16/17] ovl: use vfs_get_link() Miklos Szeredi
2016-09-12 19:29 ` [PATCH 17/17] ecryptfs: " Miklos Szeredi
2016-09-27 3:10 ` [PATCH 00/17] clean up readlinks Al Viro
2016-09-27 9:38 ` Miklos Szeredi
2016-09-28 2:17 ` Al Viro [this message]
2016-09-28 14:47 ` Miklos Szeredi
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=20160928021727.GN19539@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mszeredi@redhat.com \
--cc=tyhicks@canonical.com \
/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