From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68E8580027; Mon, 26 Aug 2024 23:21:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.14 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724714511; cv=none; b=AlM0nXkEEiNiZOCKrebv+U5yuY3lqpVk8rbc2AJUG1U3fhR+fa/hiu5xFjeervvXgEggkJEAyerW3wxddt7fgM3IdfG6QJQJ5BvrEFjQiQytB+NPTegFCH+ETdUQRb4PZxp4ii7vwvfIZ7C2WGqPMMKb/T5w2QMwS6XRnKSidYY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1724714511; c=relaxed/simple; bh=nrxAK3cZ51QgoEX/irFEk03z6aVmYQZR0sYAle5hMGw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Hzyw23Xr3Vfl72VZc+aKvgI8VMUMG+Eb4faLY7aFN/vtaD7jmDcLKEERp8nRbtOiknZs+qZWMdQCwR8/yaLZlYeebDRPo0mRH4GVttAk7d/37rp6ryuymEWsrftDnkvqQZnKBXjXsOypRrO0af50M8iWlFZyzfdFwo0M6BTL8EE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=Rc/zL9Tk; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.14 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="Rc/zL9Tk" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1724714509; x=1756250509; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date: message-id:mime-version; bh=nrxAK3cZ51QgoEX/irFEk03z6aVmYQZR0sYAle5hMGw=; b=Rc/zL9TkX1FkFV1LGUuDGY9+nJgQa6RCQ5R2vSrsOrNjMVcMMuJ/PJb0 q6OMs7LqFlr2ZQCLV64w4JhDRmrhyydsCvA41RYStbJyLtXcqpo/5hZtH Tm3sD6PsnzZKCRSB+luPj22Uv0/63wOBEeFkNUUZrN1PgBuTdkXIcIc0I vERc2vGRsNxWhPWYJMCngUQkTCAT1EcYdOtwWc4vV9rkbTsuIZKB496pQ qf/pAm+PGStCzHI8xmMDzxKMovm1WSWH/qX/Q0kDqZ6SUIhedxSFIL5Kd 3Ay339sXZxiPS02+iqQI3l2nRWnpFzCAGTTiB2ZEwsm9d7whsY8tNfw33 Q==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 3bSVQ4xoQpSMhXPHeYDbGQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: ynkT5hOuSVKSFv61LHiLsQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11176"; a="26959489" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.10,178,1719903600"; d="scan'208";a="26959489" Received: from orviesa006.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.146]) by orvoesa106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 26 Aug 2024 16:21:49 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: tbt0GUXcQrKwymXuya3qsA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 6P5uqhX1QtmCh0b9VhOttg== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.10,178,1719903600"; d="scan'208";a="62982573" Received: from mesiment-mobl2.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO vcostago-mobl3) ([10.124.223.39]) by orviesa006-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 26 Aug 2024 16:21:46 -0700 From: Vinicius Costa Gomes To: Miklos Szeredi Cc: brauner@kernel.org, amir73il@gmail.com, hu1.chen@intel.com, malini.bhandaru@intel.com, tim.c.chen@intel.com, mikko.ylinen@intel.com, linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 16/16] overlayfs: Remove ovl_override_creds_light() In-Reply-To: References: <20240822012523.141846-1-vinicius.gomes@intel.com> <20240822012523.141846-17-vinicius.gomes@intel.com> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 16:21:42 -0700 Message-ID: <87jzg2kgzd.fsf@intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Miklos Szeredi writes: > On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 at 03:25, Vinicius Costa Gomes > wrote: >> >> Remove the declaration of this unsafe helper. >> >> As the GUARD() helper guarantees that the cleanup will run, it is less >> error prone. > > This statement is somewhat dubious. > > I suggest that unless and until the goto issue can be fixed the > conversion to guards is postponed. That's a good point. I just want to point out that the issue is only with the combination of the "plain" (not scoped) GUARD() statements and 'goto'. But I would be happy to postpone that, if the trouble is not worth it. As all the performance gains come from the conversion to the _light() helpers. > > Thanks, > Miklos Cheers, -- Vinicius