lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [May]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: permission() operating on inode instead of dentry?
From
Date
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@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk
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@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:35    [W:0.026 / U:0.428 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site