Re: d_path() and overlay fs

[Miklos Szeredi]

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 04:25:58PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 05:01:23PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>>
>> > But it does take care of the majority of f_path users that actually want the
>> > covering path.
>>
>> Bloody bad idea, IMO.  I have no objections against adding _helpers_ from
>> that patch (seq_file_path(), etc.), but I really don't like adding that
>> second struct path there.  And it still doesn't fix the issue with
>> LSM, etc., so we'll _still_ need to fix it sane way.
>
> Obviously getting rid of the extra path would be good.  But we still have lots
> of f_path.dentry in filesystems and we need to start with that.

So we'd need the following helpers:

file_path() - d_path() but gets file
seq_file_path() - seq_path() but gets file
f_covering_path() - other uses of ->f_path that don't want the backing
filesystem's dentry
file_dentry() - uses of f_path.dentry that want the backing filesystem's dentry
file_mount() - uses of f_path.mnt

Hopefully that would cover all f_path uses.

I'd really not want to keep f_path with that name, because it would
just breed new f_path.dentry uses in filesystems.  Better no direct
f_path references at all.

Thanks,
Miklos
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/