On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 01:13:13PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> 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?
Why is a another function in charge of checking the return value of an
initialization function. If something like path_init() fails why is the
next caller responsible for rejecting it's return value and then we're
passing that failure value through the whole function with if (!err)
ladders but as I said it's mostly style preferences.
>
> > 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.
I'm confused why having callers of functions responsible for checking
error values is such an out-of-band concept suddenly. I don't think it's
worth arguing over this though.
>
> > 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.
Hm? Are you maybe overlooking path_init() which assigns straight into
the variable declaration? Or are you referring to sm else?
static int path_lookupat(struct nameidata *nd, unsigned flags, struct path
*path)
{
const char *s = path_init(nd, flags);
int err;
if (unlikely(flags & LOOKUP_DOWN) && !IS_ERR(s)) {
err = handle_lookup_down(nd);
if (unlikely(err < 0))
s = ERR_PTR(err);
}
while (!(err = link_path_walk(s, nd)) &&
(s = lookup_last(nd)) != NULL)
;
