From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C0A1C3F2D1 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 23:51:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7473820848 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 23:51:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727969AbgCCXvA (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Mar 2020 18:51:00 -0500 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:50906 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727725AbgCCXu7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Mar 2020 18:50:59 -0500 Received: from in02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.52]) by out01.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j9HJS-0006h4-7F; Tue, 03 Mar 2020 16:50:58 -0700 Received: from ip68-227-160-95.om.om.cox.net ([68.227.160.95] helo=x220.xmission.com) by in02.mta.xmission.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1j9HJF-0000FX-Kq; Tue, 03 Mar 2020 16:50:57 -0700 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Al Viro Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-fsdevel , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <20200223011154.GY23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20200301215125.GA873525@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20200302003926.GM23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 17:48:31 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20200302003926.GM23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (Al Viro's message of "Mon, 2 Mar 2020 00:39:26 +0000") Message-ID: <87o8tdgfu8.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-SPF: eid=1j9HJF-0000FX-Kq;;;mid=<87o8tdgfu8.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>;;;hst=in02.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=68.227.160.95;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX18MPB9/ctLiB1zinwxXNaRDXt7z8LOurDo= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 68.227.160.95 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCHSET] sanitized pathwalk machinery (v3) X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in02.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Al Viro writes: > On Sun, Mar 01, 2020 at 04:34:06PM -0600, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 3:51 PM Al Viro wrote: >> > >> > Extended since the last repost. The branch is in #work.dotdot; >> > #work.do_last is its beginning (about 2/3 of the total), slightly >> > reworked since the last time. >> >> I'm traveling, so only a quick read-through. >> >> One request: can you add the total diffstat to the cover letter (along >> with what you used as a base)? > > Sure, no problem (and the base is still -rc1) > >> I did apply it to a branch just to look >> at it more closely, so I can see the final diffstat that way: >> >> Documentation/filesystems/path-lookup.rst | 7 +- >> fs/autofs/dev-ioctl.c | 6 +- >> fs/internal.h | 1 - >> fs/namei.c | 1333 +++++++++------------ >> fs/namespace.c | 96 +- >> fs/open.c | 4 +- >> include/linux/namei.h | 4 +- >> 7 files changed, 642 insertions(+), 809 deletions(-) >> >> but it would have been nice to see in your explanation too. >> >> Anyway, from a quick read-through, I don't see anything that raises my >> hackles - you've fixed the goto label naming, and I didn't notice >> anything else odd. >> >> Maybe that was because I wasn't careful enough. But the final line >> count certainly speaks for the series.. > > Heh... Part of my metrics is actually "how large a sheet of paper does > one need to fit the call graph on" ;-) > > I hope it gets serious beating, though - it touches pretty much every > codepath in pathname resolution. Is there any way to sic the bots on > a branch, short of "push it into -next and wait for screams"? Last I looked pushing a branch to kernel.org was enough for the kbuild bots. Sending patches to LKML is also enough for those bots. I don't know if that kind of bot is what you need testing your code. Eric