> > Since all the vfs_* functions will become static with path_* being the > > only caller, the compiler will be happy to get rid of that stack frame > > too. > > > > What is left is the guarantee, that the race-free r/o remounts will > > always work and some obscure caller didn't forget to surround it with > > the r/o checks. > > > > I think it's definitely worth it. > > It would be, if we had only single vfs_...() as critical sections. We > do not - see previous mail or read the fucking tree, already. Why are those so important? Yes, if we have multiple vfs_() calls, surround them with an extra want/drop pair. We do already do multiple overlapping want/drop pairs with O_TRUNC and O_CREAT (AFAIR). > We don't even have many callers of each, and with a few we do it's not > obvious that we want to go through vfsmounts (and vfsmount-based checks) > in all of them. So no, I don't buy your argument. Sorry. > > I'm not even convinced that they are useful as helpers, at least until > we'd decided what to do with checks in nfsd. Until then we do, as > far as I'm concerned, one place where they would definitely DTRT - fs/namei.c. > And I want more than one caller before merging those, unix_bind() -> vfs_mknod() sys_mq_unlink() -> vfs_unlink() open.c (several) -> notify_change() *setxattr() -> vfs_setxattr() *removexattr() -> vfs_removexattr() > let alone removing the interface that doesn't require checks to be > vfsmount-based for all users. What users? There are paractically _no_ other users. The ones that there are (like reiserfs) should not be using them, and there are already some patches cleaning that mess up. Miklos -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
