Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 10:13:18AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>
>> The do_last() reorganization in the atomic-open series needs to be split
>> up, I realize. Do you have any other high level comments about that
>> series?
>
> Yes.
> a) Please, pull removal of open-from-d_revalidate() as far in front
> of the queue as possible, *along* *with* -EOPENSTALE stuff. Without the
> latter the former is simply broken - we might have hit -ESTALE before and
> LOOKUP_REVAL might have already been set, so just failing ->open() with
> ESTALE may end up not repeating it.
> TBH, had that thing been in front of the queue, I would've put
> it into the last pull request; that particular idiocy (NFS4 doing open
> from all methods involved, except for ->open()) had been a serious source
> of annoyance for a long time. It really needs killing...
Will post updated series in a minute.
>
> b) opendata is simply bogus. You need to pass caller-allocated
> struct file in any case, right? So why not use it to pass what you
> need to pass? We want to be able to tell "it's a symlink, here's the
> vfsmount/dentry, now sod off and handle it yourself"?
My concern is about the visibility of a half cooked file pointer to the
filesystem. The compiler won't notice anything wrong with the
following, neither will casual testing, but it will go boom at
inopportune times:
foo_atomic_open(..., struct file *filp, ...)
{
/* ... */
if (unlikely error)
goto cleanup;
filp = finish_open(filp, dentry, NULL);
/* ... */
if (some other error)
goto cleanup;
return filp;
cleanup:
fput(filp);
return ERR_PTR(error);
}
Thanks,
Miklos
--
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
