On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 06:02:28PM +1100, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
First of all, dirfd_path_init() part should be in a separate commit. And I'm
really not happy with the logics in there. dirfd_path_init() itself is
kinda-sorta reasonable. It is equivalent to setting the starting point for
relative pathnames + setting ->root for LOOKUP_BENEATH, right?
But the part in path_init() is too bloody convoluted for its own good. Let me
try to translate:
> + if (unlikely(flags & LOOKUP_XDEV)) {
> + error = dirfd_path_init(nd);
> + if (unlikely(error))
> + return ERR_PTR(error);
> + }
* if LOOKUP_XDEV is set, set the starting point as if it was a relative
pathname. If LOOKUP_BENEATH was set as well, set ->root to the same
point.
* if it's an absolute pathname,
> if (*s == '/') {
... and we hadn't come here with LOOKUP_XDEV + LOOKUP_BENEATH, set ->root.
> + if (likely(!nd->root.mnt))
> + set_root(nd);
* if it's an absolute pathname, set the starting point to ->root. Note that
if we came here with LOOKUP_XDEV, we'll discard the starting point we'd
calculated.
> + error = nd_jump_root(nd);
> + if (unlikely(error))
> + s = ERR_PTR(error);
> return s;
> }
> + if (likely(!nd->path.mnt)) {
* if we didn't have LOOKUP_XDEV, set the starting point as if it was a relative
pathname (which it is) and, if LOOKUP_BENEATH is also there, set ->root there
as well.
> + error = dirfd_path_init(nd);
> + if (unlikely(error))
> + return ERR_PTR(error);
> + }
> + return s;
> }
Pardon me, but... huh? The reason for your two calls of dirfd_path_init() is,
AFAICS, the combination of absolute pathname with both LOOKUP_XDEV and
LOOKUP_BENEATH at the same time. That combination is treated as if the pathname
had been relative. Note that LOOKUP_BENEATH alone is ignored for absolute ones
(and with a good reason - it's a no-op on path_init() level in that case).
What the hell? It complicates your code and doesn't seem to provide any
benefits
whatsoever -- you could bloody well have passed the relative pathname to start
with.
IDGI... Without that kludge it becomes simply "do as we currently do for
absolute
pathnames, call dirfd_path_init() for relative ones". And I would argue that
taking LOOKUP_BENEATH handling out of dirfd_path_init() into path_init()
(relative)
case would be a good idea.
As it is, the logics is very hard to follow.
