On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 06:02:28PM +1100, Aleksa Sarai wrote: First of all, dirfd_path_init() part should be in a separate commit. And I'm really not happy with the logics in there. dirfd_path_init() itself is kinda-sorta reasonable. It is equivalent to setting the starting point for relative pathnames + setting ->root for LOOKUP_BENEATH, right? But the part in path_init() is too bloody convoluted for its own good. Let me try to translate: > + if (unlikely(flags & LOOKUP_XDEV)) { > + error = dirfd_path_init(nd); > + if (unlikely(error)) > + return ERR_PTR(error); > + } * if LOOKUP_XDEV is set, set the starting point as if it was a relative pathname. If LOOKUP_BENEATH was set as well, set ->root to the same point. * if it's an absolute pathname, > if (*s == '/') { ... and we hadn't come here with LOOKUP_XDEV + LOOKUP_BENEATH, set ->root. > + if (likely(!nd->root.mnt)) > + set_root(nd); * if it's an absolute pathname, set the starting point to ->root. Note that if we came here with LOOKUP_XDEV, we'll discard the starting point we'd calculated. > + error = nd_jump_root(nd); > + if (unlikely(error)) > + s = ERR_PTR(error); > return s; > } > + if (likely(!nd->path.mnt)) { * if we didn't have LOOKUP_XDEV, set the starting point as if it was a relative pathname (which it is) and, if LOOKUP_BENEATH is also there, set ->root there as well. > + error = dirfd_path_init(nd); > + if (unlikely(error)) > + return ERR_PTR(error); > + } > + return s; > } Pardon me, but... huh? The reason for your two calls of dirfd_path_init() is, AFAICS, the combination of absolute pathname with both LOOKUP_XDEV and LOOKUP_BENEATH at the same time. That combination is treated as if the pathname had been relative. Note that LOOKUP_BENEATH alone is ignored for absolute ones (and with a good reason - it's a no-op on path_init() level in that case). What the hell? It complicates your code and doesn't seem to provide any benefits whatsoever -- you could bloody well have passed the relative pathname to start with. IDGI... Without that kludge it becomes simply "do as we currently do for absolute pathnames, call dirfd_path_init() for relative ones". And I would argue that taking LOOKUP_BENEATH handling out of dirfd_path_init() into path_init() (relative) case would be a good idea. As it is, the logics is very hard to follow.