On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 08:33:19AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > 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. ... and it fails on LOOKUP_BENEATH anyway. Egads... So that's for your LOOKUP_CHROOT ;-/ IMO that's awful, especially with the way you've spread those LOOKUP_CHROOT cases between these two. Why not simply have O_THISROOT pick root by dirfd and call file_open_root()? And if something wants it for stat(), etc. just have them use it combined with O_PATH and pass the result to ...at()...
