Reviewed-by: Oren Laadan <or...@cs.columbia.edu>
(but see nit below)
On 09/23/2010 05:53 PM, Matt Helsley wrote:
> Separate the __user pathname handling from the bulk of the syscall.
> Since we're doing this to enable relinking of unlinked files by
> sys_checkpoint and not sys_linkat we're not using a sys-wrapper.
>
> Signed-off-by: Matt Helsley<matth...@us.ibm.com>
> Cc: contain...@lists.linux-foundation.org
> Cc: Oren Laadan<or...@cs.columbia.edu>
> Cc: Amir Goldstein<amir7...@users.sf.net>
> Cc: linux-fsde...@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Al Viro<v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> Cc: Christoph Hellwig<h...@infradead.org>
> Cc: Jamie Lokier<ja...@shareable.org>
...
> /*
> * Hardlinks are often used in delicate situations. We avoid
> * security-related surprises by not following symlinks on the
> @@ -2468,11 +2513,10 @@ int vfs_link(struct dentry *old_dentry, struct inode
> *dir, struct dentry *new_de
> SYSCALL_DEFINE5(linkat, int, olddfd, const char __user *, oldname,
> int, newdfd, const char __user *, newname, int, flags)
> {
> - struct dentry *new_dentry;
> struct nameidata nd;
> struct path old_path;
> - int error;
> char *to;
> + int error;
This little piece is unnecessary ;)
[...]
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
contain...@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@openvz.org
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
