Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@canonical.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 Apr 2018 19:45:15 +0200
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3 RESEND] namei: add follow_up_bind()
Message-ID: <20180405174455.GA27462@gmail.com>
References: <20180405105103.21572-1-christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
 <CA+55aFzb7xzsOb=vfrwDFTX0SToOe1esgj2B1YNMPTDPUa8Nnw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFzb7xzsOb=vfrwDFTX0SToOe1esgj2B1YNMPTDPUa8Nnw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 09:28:56AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:51 AM, Christian Brauner
> <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> >
> > This series adds:
> > - follow_up_bind() to namei.{c,h}
> > - switches fs/nfsd/vfs.c:follow_to_parent() to use follow_up_bind()
> > - switches fs/devpts/inode.c:devpts_mntget() to use follow_up_bind()
> 
> Hmm. Seems fair enough to me, although I wonder how much this really
> helps. It does get rid of a duplicate code pattern, but:
> 
>  4 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> and while some of that is just the new comment, some of it is just "overhead".

Fwiw, it does get read of these while loops in two places but I
personally see the biggest value in making it obvious what bind-mount
resolution means.

> 
> It's also a bit odd how the new helper is marked "inline", but nobody
> will inline it because it's not actually in the header file or any of
> the isers in the same C file. So instead, it has to be exported. I
> wonder if it should just be a trivial inline in <linux/namei.h>? Maybe
> it originally was, and that's where the inline came from, and then
> Christian decided to make it be by the regular "follow_up()" instead?

I head it inline first but it would have required to forward declare
struct vfsmount in the head and I wasn't sure if that was going to fly.
But I explicitly left the inline in there because I was following
user_path_create() ([1], [2]) which does the same. But if that's an
issue I can make it static inline in the header like I had, forward
declare struct vfsmount and remove the unnecessary inline from
user_path_create() in a separate patch unless there's a specific reason
to leave it in there.

[1]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/include/linux/namei.h#L79
[2]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/fs/namei.c#L3680

> 
> But with all that said, I certainly don't *mind* the patch series.

Cool.

Thanks!
Christian

> 
> Al, I'm leaving this up to you, and expect to get it from your vfs
> tree eventually. Or not.
> 
>                       Linus