On 11/19/05, Pekka Enberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/19/05, Phillip Hellewell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > +/**
> > + * This is called through iput_final().
> > + * This is function will replace generic_drop_inode. The end result of which
> > + * is we are skipping the check in inode->i_nlink, which we do not use.
> > + */
> > +static void ecryptfs_drop_inode(struct inode *inode) {
> > + generic_delete_inode(inode);
> > +}
>
> Please drop this useless wrapper and introduce it when it actually
> does something.
It does do something. By providing this function, we over-ride the
default flow of execution.
If we did not provide this function, the flow would be the following:
iput_final -> generic_drop_inode -> generic_delete_inode (or
generic_forget_inode).
However, since we do not care about the i_nlink value, which
generic_drop_inode checks in order to call generic_delete_inode, we
simply circumvent the check by redirecting the flow thusly:
iput_final -> ecryptfs_drop_inode -> generic_delete_inode
I don't see a problem with doing that, but perhaps there is? Please
elaborate if so.
>
> Pekka
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
Michael C. Thompson <[email protected]>
Software-Engineer, IBM LTC Security
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
