I have one suggestion about this part of the code.
On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 11:04:45AM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
<snip>
> +/*
> + * ACL entries that have ACE4_SPECIAL_WHO set in ace->e_flags use the
> + * pointer values of these constants in ace->u.e_who to avoid massive
> + * amounts of string comparisons.
> + */
> +
> +const char richace_owner_who[] = "OWNER@";
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(richace_owner_who);
> +const char richace_group_who[] = "GROUP@";
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(richace_group_who);
> +const char richace_everyone_who[] = "EVERYONE@";
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(richace_everyone_who);
<snip>
> +/*
> + * richace_is_same_who - do both acl entries refer to the same identifier?
> + */
> +int
> +richace_is_same_who(const struct richace *a, const struct richace *b)
> +{
> +#define WHO_FLAGS (ACE4_SPECIAL_WHO | ACE4_IDENTIFIER_GROUP)
> + if ((a->e_flags & WHO_FLAGS) != (b->e_flags & WHO_FLAGS))
> + return 0;
> + if (a->e_flags & ACE4_SPECIAL_WHO)
> + return a->u.e_who == b->u.e_who;
> + else
> + return a->u.e_id == b->u.e_id;
> +#undef WHO_FLAGS
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * richacl_set_who - set a special who value
> + * @ace: acl entry
> + * @who: who value to use
> + */
> +int
> +richace_set_who(struct richace *ace, const char *who)
> +{
> + if (!strcmp(who, richace_owner_who))
> + who = richace_owner_who;
> + else if (!strcmp(who, richace_group_who))
> + who = richace_group_who;
> + else if (!strcmp(who, richace_everyone_who))
> + who = richace_everyone_who;
> + else
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + ace->u.e_who = who;
> + ace->e_flags |= ACE4_SPECIAL_WHO;
> + ace->e_flags &= ~ACE4_IDENTIFIER_GROUP;
> + return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(richace_set_who);
> +
> +/**
> + * richacl_allowed_to_who - mask flags allowed to a specific who value
> + *
> + * Computes the mask values allowed to a specific who value, taking
> + * EVERYONE@ entries into account.
> + */
> +static unsigned int
> +richacl_allowed_to_who(struct richacl *acl, struct richace *who)
> +{
> + struct richace *ace;
> + unsigned int allowed = 0;
> +
> + richacl_for_each_entry_reverse(ace, acl) {
> + if (richace_is_inherit_only(ace))
> + continue;
> + if (richace_is_same_who(ace, who) ||
> + richace_is_everyone(ace)) {
> + if (richace_is_allow(ace))
> + allowed |= ace->e_mask;
> + else if (richace_is_deny(ace))
> + allowed &= ~ace->e_mask;
> + }
> + }
> + return allowed;
> +}
<snip>
> +struct richace {
> + unsigned short e_type;
> + unsigned short e_flags;
> + unsigned int e_mask;
> + union {
> + unsigned int e_id;
> + const char *e_who;
> + } u;
> +};
<snip>
> +/* Special e_who identifiers: we use these pointer values in comparisons
> + instead of strcmp for efficiency. */
> +
> +extern const char richace_owner_who[];
> +extern const char richace_group_who[];
> +extern const char richace_everyone_who[];
> +
> +static inline int
> +richace_is_owner(const struct richace *ace)
> +{
> + return (ace->e_flags & ACE4_SPECIAL_WHO) &&
> + ace->u.e_who == richace_owner_who;
> +}
> +
> +static inline int
> +richace_is_group(const struct richace *ace)
> +{
> + return (ace->e_flags & ACE4_SPECIAL_WHO) &&
> + ace->u.e_who == richace_group_who;
> +}
> +
> +static inline int
> +richace_is_everyone(const struct richace *ace)
> +{
> + return (ace->e_flags & ACE4_SPECIAL_WHO) &&
> + ace->u.e_who == richace_everyone_who;
> +}
> +
> +static inline int
> +richace_is_unix_id(const struct richace *ace)
> +{
> + return !(ace->e_flags & ACE4_SPECIAL_WHO);
> +}
Wouldn't it make more sense to just store some small numeric value
in ace->u.e_who rather than a pointer? It seems to me that the
savings of storing and comparing an integer type would more than
make up for the slight overhead of needing to lookup a pointer
in the places where the code must handle an external representation.
I know there is really only a difference on 64-bit systems, but my
impression has been that most people are going that way. In particular,
the struct richace would go to 12 bytes with 4-byte alignment from
16 bytes with 8-byte alignment on an architecture with 8-byte pointers.
Plus doing an integer instead of a pointer should eliminate the need
to export the constant pointer values. Even in 32-bit, there are a
few odd architectures (like m68k) that have separate address and
data registers, so using an integer may have some benefits there
due to the fact that the instruction set treats them differently.
I know you mentioned that you didn't originally write this code, but
it seems a logical change to me.
Brad Boyer
flar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
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
