Re: permission() operating on inode instead of dentry?

[Shaya Potter (spotter@cs.columbia.edu)]

I'm going to assume this mean "it's a reasonable idea, all that matters
is the execution"

On Wed, 2003-05-28 at 01:48, viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 01:19:40AM -0400, Shaya Potter wrote:
> > [please cc: responses to me, have 10k message backlog in l-k folder)
> > 
> > Is there a good reason why the fs permission function operates on the
> > inode instead of the dentry? It would seem if the dentry was passed into
> > the function instead of the inode, one would have a better structure to
> > play with, such as being able to use d_put() to get the real path name. 
> > The inode is still readily accessible from the dentry.
> 
> man grep.
> 
> Then use the resulting knowledge to find the callers of said function in
> the tree.
> 
> Then think where you would get dentry (and vfsmount, since you want path)
> for each of these.  Exclude ones that have them available.  See which
> functions contain the rest of calls.

Why would the calling process not be the right place?  Everything should
have a calling process, or am I missing something?

<snipped how to get it done>

thanks,

shaya

-
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/