From: Al Viro <[email protected]>
To: Christian Brauner <[email protected]>
Cc: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>,
syzbot <[email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [syzbot] WARNING in mntput_no_expire (2)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 13:13:13 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YGxeaTzdnxn/[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210406123505.auxqtquoys6xg6yf@wittgenstein>
On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 02:35:05PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> And while we're at it might I bring up the possibility of an additional
> cleanup of how we currently call path_init().
> Right now we pass the return value from path_init() directly into e.g.
> link_path_walk() which as a first thing checks for error. Which feels
> rather wrong and has always confused me when looking at these codepaths.
Why?
> I get that it might make sense for reasons unrelated to path_init() that
> link_path_walk() checks its first argument for error but path_init()
> should be checked for error right away especially now that we return
> early when LOOKUP_CACHED is set without LOOKUP_RCU.
But you are making the _callers_ of path_init() do that, for no good
reason.
> thing especially in longer functions such as path_lookupat() where it
> gets convoluted pretty quickly. I think it would be cleaner to have
> something like [1]. The early exists make the code easier to reason
> about imho. But I get that that's a style discussion.
Your variant is a lot more brittle, actually.
> @@ -2424,33 +2424,49 @@ static int path_lookupat(struct nameidata *nd, unsigned flags, struct path *path
> int err;
>
> s = path_init(nd, flags);
> - if (IS_ERR(s))
> - return PTR_ERR(s);
Where has that come from, BTW? Currently path_lookupat() does no such thing.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-06 13:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <[email protected]>
2021-04-01 15:45 ` [syzbot] WARNING in mntput_no_expire (2) Christian Brauner
2021-04-01 16:09 ` Jens Axboe
2021-04-01 17:46 ` Christian Brauner
2021-04-01 17:59 ` Christian Brauner
2021-04-01 19:11 ` Al Viro
2021-04-04 2:34 ` Al Viro
2021-04-04 2:38 ` Al Viro
2021-04-04 11:34 ` Christian Brauner
2021-04-04 15:56 ` Al Viro
2021-04-04 16:40 ` Christian Brauner
2021-04-04 16:44 ` Al Viro
2021-04-04 17:05 ` Christian Brauner
2021-04-04 18:50 ` Al Viro
2021-04-04 20:17 ` Al Viro
2021-04-05 11:44 ` Christian Brauner
2021-04-05 16:18 ` Al Viro
2021-04-05 17:08 ` Christian Brauner
2021-04-05 18:23 ` Al Viro
2021-04-05 18:28 ` Al Viro
2021-04-05 20:07 ` Christian Brauner
2021-04-06 1:38 ` Al Viro
2021-04-06 2:24 ` Al Viro
2021-04-06 12:35 ` Christian Brauner
2021-04-06 13:13 ` Al Viro [this message]
2021-04-06 13:22 ` Christian Brauner
2021-04-06 14:15 ` Al Viro
2021-04-06 14:23 ` Al Viro
2021-04-06 15:37 ` Jens Axboe
2021-04-06 14:46 ` Christian Brauner
2021-04-04 16:52 ` Christian Brauner
2021-04-04 16:55 ` Christian Brauner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YGxeaTzdnxn/[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox