On Fri 04-01-19 10:38:39, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Sun 02-12-18 13:38:20, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > @@ -268,6 +289,7 @@ static int fanotify_handle_event(struct fsnotify_group *group,
> > int ret = 0;
> > struct fanotify_event *event;
> > struct fsnotify_event *fsn_event;
> > + __kernel_fsid_t __fsid, *fsid = NULL;
> >
> > BUILD_BUG_ON(FAN_ACCESS != FS_ACCESS);
> > BUILD_BUG_ON(FAN_MODIFY != FS_MODIFY);
> > @@ -300,7 +322,10 @@ static int fanotify_handle_event(struct fsnotify_group *group,
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > - event = fanotify_alloc_event(group, inode, mask, data);
> > + if (FAN_GROUP_FLAG(group, FAN_REPORT_FID))
> > + fsid = fanotify_get_fsid(iter_info, &__fsid);
> > +
> > + event = fanotify_alloc_event(group, inode, mask, data, fsid);
>
> This looks wrong? fsid is never assigned anything != NULL? How could have
> this worked?
Sorry. I understand now. But the calling convention is somewhat unusual.
Actually, since fsid is just 8 bytes anyway, why not just return is as
value? I.e. something like:
static __kernel_fsid_t fanotify_get_fsid(struct fsnotify_iter_info*iter_info)
{
...
}
You won't save any copying on 64-bit archs and I've checked and GCC will
optimize this to a standard register return convention anyway.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
