Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 11:53:12AM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 05:50:55PM -0700, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote: >> > Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > >> > > >> > > So something like this? (Amir?) >> > > >> > > >> > > -DEFINE_LOCK_GUARD_1(cred, const struct cred, _T->lock = override_creds_light(_T->lock), >> > > - revert_creds_light(_T->lock)); >> > > +DEFINE_LOCK_GUARD_1(cred, struct cred, >> > > + _T->lock = (struct cred *)override_creds_light(_T->lock), >> > > + revert_creds_light(_T->lock)); >> > > + >> > > +#define cred_guard(_cred) guard(cred)(((struct cred *)_cred)) >> > > +#define cred_scoped_guard(_cred) scoped_guard(cred, ((struct cred *)_cred)) >> > > >> > > /** >> > > * get_new_cred_many - Get references on a new set of credentials >> > >> > Thinking about proposing a PATCH version (with these suggestions applied), Amir >> > has suggested in the past that I should propose two separate series: >> > (1) introducing the guard helpers + backing file changes; >> > (2) overlayfs changes; >> > >> > Any new ideas about this? Or should I go with this plan? >> >> I mean make it two separate patches and I can provide Amir with a stable >> branch for the cleanup guards. I think that's what he wanted. > > But send them out in one series ofc. Amir and I can sort this if needed. Yeah, understood. Thank you, -- Vinicius
