Re: [PATCH 3/4] fix setuid sometimes wouldn't

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 03/29, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 11:21:27PM +0000, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > -static struct fs_struct *get_fs_struct(struct task_struct *task)
> > +static int get_fs_path(struct task_struct *task, struct path *path, bool root)
> >  {
> >  	struct fs_struct *fs;
> > +	int result = -ENOENT;
> > +
> >  	task_lock(task);
> >  	fs = task->fs;
> > -	if(fs)
> > -		atomic_inc(&fs->count);
> > +	if (fs) {
> > +		read_lock(&fs->lock);
> > +		*path = root ? fs->root : fs->pwd;
> > +		path_get(path);
> > +		read_unlock(&fs->lock);
> > +		result = 0;
> > +	}
> >  	task_unlock(task);
> > -	return fs;
> > +	return result;
> >  }
>
> I think it's better to open-code. "root" parameter is unnatural.

IMHO, open-coding doesn't improve readability. I am not even talking
about code size (it doesn't matter of course, the kernel is so tiny ;).

Perhaps "enum what" is more natural compared to "bool root", but this
helper is simple enough.

Personally, I think this patch makes sense even if it didn't fix the
bug, it cleanups the code and makes it more readable.

Oleg.

--
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/