On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 08:57:45PM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> > > @@ -2350,9 +2400,11 @@ static const char *path_init(struct nameidata *nd, unsigned flags)
> > > s = ERR_PTR(error);
> > > return s;
> > > }
> > > - error = dirfd_path_init(nd);
> > > - if (unlikely(error))
> > > - return ERR_PTR(error);
> > > + if (likely(!nd->path.mnt)) {
> >
> > Is that a weird way of saying "if we hadn't already called dirfd_path_init()"?
>
> Yes. I did it to be more consistent with the other "have we got the
> root" checks elsewhere. Is there another way you'd prefer I do it?
"Have we got the root" checks are inevitable evil; here you are making the
control flow in a single function hard to follow.
I *think* what you are doing is
absolute pathname, no LOOKUP_BENEATH:
set_root
error = nd_jump_root(nd)
else
error = dirfd_path_init(nd)
return unlikely(error) ? ERR_PTR(error) : s;
which should be a lot easier to follow (not to mention shorter), but I might
be missing something in all of that.
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
