Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> - old_cred = ovl_override_creds_light(file_inode(file)->i_sb);
>> - ret = vfs_fallocate(real.file, mode, offset, len);
>> - revert_creds_light(old_cred);
>> + cred_scoped_guard(ovl_creds(file_inode(file)->i_sb))
>> + ret = vfs_fallocate(real.file, mode, offset, len);
>>
>
> I find this syntax confusing. Even though it is a valid syntax,
> I prefer that if there is a scope we use explicit brackets for it even
> if the scope is
> a single line.
>
Will add the brackets.
> How about using:
> {
> cred_guard(ovl_creds(file_inode(file)->i_sb));
> ret = vfs_fallocate(real.file, mode, offset, len);
> }
>
> It is more clear and helps averting the compiler bug(?).
I prefer the scoped_cred_guard() idiom, having it spelled out sounds
better to me. But a new block should avoid the bug as well.
>
> Maybe we should just place cred_guard(ovl_creds(file_inode(file_out)->i_sb))
> in ovl_copy_file_range()?
>
> I don't think that the order of ovl_override_creds() vs. inode_lock()
> really matters?
>
Most probably the order should not matter. Will change this.
> Thanks,
> Amir.
Cheers,
--
Vinicius
