Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: permission() operating on inode instead of dentry? | From | Shaya Potter <> | Date | 28 May 2003 01:56:20 -0400 |
| |
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/
| |