On Thu, 31 Mar 2022, David Disseldorp wrote: > On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 09:59:48 +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > > > On Wed, 30 Mar 2022, David Disseldorp wrote: > > > Hi Neil, > > > > > > I gave this a spin and was wondering why xfstests wouldn't start with > > > this change... > > > > > > On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 11:56:48 +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > > > ... > > > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/namei.c b/fs/namei.c > > > > index 3f1829b3ab5b..3ffb42e56a8e 100644 > > > > --- a/fs/namei.c > > > > +++ b/fs/namei.c > > > > @@ -3676,7 +3676,6 @@ static struct dentry *filename_create(int dfd, struct filename *name, > > > > int type; > > > > int err2; > > > > int error; > > > > - bool is_dir = (lookup_flags & LOOKUP_DIRECTORY); > > > > > > > > /* > > > > * Note that only LOOKUP_REVAL and LOOKUP_DIRECTORY matter here. Any > > > > @@ -3698,9 +3697,11 @@ static struct dentry *filename_create(int dfd, struct filename *name, > > > > /* don't fail immediately if it's r/o, at least try to report other errors */ > > > > err2 = mnt_want_write(path->mnt); > > > > /* > > > > - * Do the final lookup. > > > > + * Do the final lookup. Request 'create' only if there is no trailing > > > > + * '/', or if directory is requested. > > > > */ > > > > - lookup_flags |= LOOKUP_CREATE | LOOKUP_EXCL; > > > > + if (!last.name[last.len] || (lookup_flags & LOOKUP_DIRECTORY)) > > > > + lookup_flags |= LOOKUP_CREATE | LOOKUP_EXCL; > > > > > > This doesn't look right, as any LOOKUP_DIRECTORY flag gets dropped via > > > the prior "lookup_flags &= LOOKUP_REVAL;". > > > > Arg.. thanks for testing - I clearly should have tested more broadly. > > > > I could leave the "is_dir" variable there I guess. > > Or maybe the masking statement should be > > lookup_flags &= LOOKUP_REVAL | LOOKUP_DIRECTORY; > > as that is a better match for the comment. > > Modifying "lookup_flags" results in changed filename_parentat() and > __lookup_hash() parameters, which isn't an intended consequence IIUC. I > think retaining "is_dir" would make sense. I think retaining is_dir is ugly. Given that LOOKUP_DIRECTORY is meaningful, why mask it off? The only flag *ever* passed to filename_parentat() is LOOKUP_REVAL, so maybe it would make sense to change the parameter to be called "reval" to make the meaning more obvious. The only other use of lookup_flags is to pass it to ->lookup(). I guess LOOKUP_DIRECTORY isn't really meaningful there .. though it does say "this lookup is never for a non-directory"... might that be helpful? Maybe I'll have another look in the morning. Thanks, NeilBrown
