"H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]> writes: > On 06/02/16 13:22, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> The problem with lookup_one_len_unlocked is that it still calls >> inode_permission. >> >> As per previous discussions we don't want the path based permission >> checks involved in that lookup. >> > > Is it that we don't *want* it, or that we don't *need* it? In the > latter case, we could just do whatever makes the code simpler, no?
We certainly don't need the permission check. Keeping the permission check appears to introduce an inconsistency between what make sense for the code to do and what the code actually does that only matters once in a blue moon. That weirdness will probably cause an issue for someone sometime that will take forever to track down, because no one will be expecting it. So in my opinion the code will be much more maintainable if we don't include user visible behaviors that will violate peoples simple mental model of how the code behaves. Eric
