On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 09:38:19PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 11/15/20 9:45 PM, Dmitry Kadashev wrote:
> > Pass in the struct filename pointers instead of the user string, and
> > update the three callers to do the same. This is heavily based on
> > commit dbea8d345177 ("fs: make do_renameat2() take struct filename").
> >
> > This behaves like do_unlinkat() and do_renameat2().
>
> Al, are you OK with this patch? Leaving it quoted, though you should
> have the original too.
> > -static long do_mkdirat(int dfd, const char __user *pathname, umode_t mode)
> > +long do_mkdirat(int dfd, struct filename *name, umode_t mode)
> > {
> > struct dentry *dentry;
> > struct path path;
> > int error;
> > unsigned int lookup_flags = LOOKUP_DIRECTORY;
> >
> > + if (IS_ERR(name))
> > + return PTR_ERR(name);
> > +
> > retry:
> > - dentry = user_path_create(dfd, pathname, &path, lookup_flags);
> > - if (IS_ERR(dentry))
> > - return PTR_ERR(dentry);
> > + name->refcnt++; /* filename_create() drops our ref */
> > + dentry = filename_create(dfd, name, &path, lookup_flags);
> > + if (IS_ERR(dentry)) {
> > + error = PTR_ERR(dentry);
> > + goto out;
> > + }
No. This is going to be a source of confusion from hell. If anything,
you want a variant of filename_create() that does not drop name on
success. With filename_create() itself being an inlined wrapper
for it.
