On 2019-11-13, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Minor nit here - I'd split "move the conditional call of set_root()
> into nd_jump_root()" into a separate patch before that one. Makes
> for fewer distractions in this one. I'd probably fold "and be
> ready for errors other than -ECHILD" into the same preliminary
> patch.
Will do.
> > + /* Not currently safe for scoped-lookups. */
> > + if (unlikely(nd->flags & LOOKUP_IS_SCOPED))
> > + return ERR_PTR(-EXDEV);
>
> Also a candidate for doing in nd_jump_link()...
>
> > @@ -1373,8 +1403,11 @@ static int follow_dotdot_rcu(struct nameidata *nd)
> > struct inode *inode = nd->inode;
> >
> > while (1) {
> > - if (path_equal(&nd->path, &nd->root))
> > + if (path_equal(&nd->path, &nd->root)) {
> > + if (unlikely(nd->flags & LOOKUP_BENEATH))
> > + return -EXDEV;
>
> Umm... Are you sure it's not -ECHILD?
It wouldn't hurt to be -ECHILD -- though it's not clear to me how likely
a success would be in REF-walk if the parent components didn't already
trigger an unlazy_walk() in RCU-walk.
I guess that also means LOOKUP_NO_XDEV should trigger -ECHILD in
follow_dotdot_rcu()?
--
Aleksa Sarai
Senior Software Engineer (Containers)
SUSE Linux GmbH
<https://www.cyphar.com/>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
