Skip to content
Projects
Groups
Snippets
Help
Loading...
Help
Support
Keyboard shortcuts
?
Submit feedback
Contribute to GitLab
Sign in / Register
Toggle navigation
L
linux
Project overview
Project overview
Details
Activity
Releases
Repository
Repository
Files
Commits
Branches
Tags
Contributors
Graph
Compare
Issues
0
Issues
0
List
Boards
Labels
Milestones
Merge Requests
0
Merge Requests
0
Analytics
Analytics
Repository
Value Stream
Wiki
Wiki
Snippets
Snippets
Members
Members
Collapse sidebar
Close sidebar
Activity
Graph
Create a new issue
Commits
Issue Boards
Open sidebar
Kirill Smelkov
linux
Commits
806b681c
Commit
806b681c
authored
Dec 26, 2009
by
Al Viro
Browse files
Options
Browse Files
Download
Email Patches
Plain Diff
Turn do_link spaghetty into a normal loop
Signed-off-by:
Al Viro
<
viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk
>
parent
10fa8e62
Changes
1
Show whitespace changes
Inline
Side-by-side
Showing
1 changed file
with
38 additions
and
45 deletions
+38
-45
fs/namei.c
fs/namei.c
+38
-45
No files found.
fs/namei.c
View file @
806b681c
...
...
@@ -1844,39 +1844,20 @@ struct file *do_filp_open(int dfd, const char *pathname,
if
(
open_flag
&
O_EXCL
)
nd
.
flags
|=
LOOKUP_EXCL
;
filp
=
do_last
(
&
nd
,
&
path
,
open_flag
,
acc_mode
,
mode
,
pathname
);
if
(
!
filp
)
goto
do_link
;
goto
out
;
exit_dput:
path_put_conditional
(
&
path
,
&
nd
);
if
(
!
IS_ERR
(
nd
.
intent
.
open
.
file
))
release_open_intent
(
&
nd
);
exit_parent:
path_put
(
&
nd
.
path
);
filp
=
ERR_PTR
(
error
);
out:
if
(
nd
.
root
.
mnt
)
path_put
(
&
nd
.
root
);
if
(
filp
==
ERR_PTR
(
-
ESTALE
)
&&
!
force_reval
)
{
force_reval
=
1
;
goto
reval
;
}
return
filp
;
do_link:
while
(
unlikely
(
!
filp
))
{
/* trailing symlink */
error
=
-
ELOOP
;
if
((
open_flag
&
O_NOFOLLOW
)
||
count
++
==
32
)
goto
exit_dput
;
/*
* This is subtle. Instead of calling do_follow_link() we do the
* thing by hands. The reason is that this way we have zero link_count
* and path_walk() (called from ->follow_link) honoring LOOKUP_PARENT.
* After that we have the parent and last component, i.e.
* we are in the same situation as after the first path_walk().
* Well, almost - if the last component is normal we get its copy
* stored in nd->last.name and we will have to putname() it when we
* are done. Procfs-like symlinks just set LAST_BIND.
* This is subtle. Instead of calling do_follow_link() we do
* the thing by hands. The reason is that this way we have zero
* link_count and path_walk() (called from ->follow_link)
* honoring LOOKUP_PARENT. After that we have the parent and
* last component, i.e. we are in the same situation as after
* the first path_walk(). Well, almost - if the last component
* is normal we get its copy stored in nd->last.name and we will
* have to putname() it when we are done. Procfs-like symlinks
* just set LAST_BIND.
*/
nd
.
flags
|=
LOOKUP_PARENT
;
error
=
security_inode_follow_link
(
path
.
dentry
,
&
nd
);
...
...
@@ -1885,10 +1866,7 @@ struct file *do_filp_open(int dfd, const char *pathname,
error
=
__do_follow_link
(
&
path
,
&
nd
);
path_put
(
&
path
);
if
(
error
)
{
/* Does someone understand code flow here? Or it is only
* me so stupid? Anathema to whoever designed this non-sense
* with "intent.open".
*/
/* nd.path had been dropped */
release_open_intent
(
&
nd
);
filp
=
ERR_PTR
(
error
);
goto
out
;
...
...
@@ -1897,8 +1875,23 @@ struct file *do_filp_open(int dfd, const char *pathname,
filp
=
do_last
(
&
nd
,
&
path
,
open_flag
,
acc_mode
,
mode
,
pathname
);
if
(
nd
.
last_type
==
LAST_NORM
)
__putname
(
nd
.
last
.
name
);
if
(
!
filp
)
goto
do_link
;
}
out:
if
(
nd
.
root
.
mnt
)
path_put
(
&
nd
.
root
);
if
(
filp
==
ERR_PTR
(
-
ESTALE
)
&&
!
force_reval
)
{
force_reval
=
1
;
goto
reval
;
}
return
filp
;
exit_dput:
path_put_conditional
(
&
path
,
&
nd
);
if
(
!
IS_ERR
(
nd
.
intent
.
open
.
file
))
release_open_intent
(
&
nd
);
exit_parent:
path_put
(
&
nd
.
path
);
filp
=
ERR_PTR
(
error
);
goto
out
;
}
...
...
Write
Preview
Markdown
is supported
0%
Try again
or
attach a new file
Attach a file
Cancel
You are about to add
0
people
to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Cancel
Please
register
or
sign in
to comment