J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > If the only difference is just whether it takes a reference on the > passed-in cred it might be clearest just to write > > set_creds(new); > > or > set_creds(get_creds(new)); > > depending on which you want? The former would be preferable, if it transfers the reference on the creds to the task_struct, thus eliminating the need for a put_cred(). > In any case, yes, the revert_creds()/override_creds() names don't tell > me much. > > > > Looking through nfsd_setuser(), one obvious bug: in the (flags & > > > NFSEXP_ALLSQUASH) case, we never check the return value from the > > > groups_alloc(0). If it returns NULL, we dereference it anyway. > > > > Since a zero-length groups list must be copied before writing, can I recommend > > that we make groups_alloc(0) a special case that returns pointer to a > > statically allocated groups list (after inc'ing the refcount) that represents > > a zero-length list, thus meaning groups_alloc(0) will never fail? > > Is there a really big advantage to that? On the face of it it strikes > me as a weird corner case that I'll trip over every time I look at this > code. It'll remove a potential OOM condition. It's a minor optimisation, I think. David -- 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
