On 12/11/15 13:48, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Eric W. Biederman
> <ebied...@xmission.com> wrote:
>> Al Viro <v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk> writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 01:40:40PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>
>>>> + inode = path.dentry->d_inode;
>>>> + filp->f_path = path;
>>>> + filp->f_inode = inode;
>>>> + filp->f_mapping = inode->i_mapping;
>>>> + path_put(&old);
>>>
>>> Don't. You are creating a fairly subtle constraint on what the code in
>>> fs/open.c and fs/namei.c can do, for no good reason. You can bloody
>>> well maintain the information you need without that.
>>
>> There is a good reason. We can not write a race free version of ptsname
>> without it.
>
> As long as this is for new userspace code, would it make sense to just
> add a new ioctl to ask "does this ptmx fd match this /dev/pts fd?"
>
For the newinstance case st_dev should match between the master and the
slave. Unfortunately this is not the case for a legacy ptmx, as a
stat() on the master descriptor still returns the st_dev, st_rdev, and
st_ino for the ptmx device node.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
