vfs: remove unneeded permission check from path_init
When path_init is called with a valid dfd, that code checks permissions on the open directory fd and returns an error if the check fails. This permission check is redundant, however. Both callers of path_init immediately call link_path_walk afterward. The first thing that link_path_walk does for pathnames that do not consist only of slashes is to check for exec permissions at the starting point of the path walk. And this check in path_init() is on the path taken only when *name != '/' && *name != '\0'. In most cases, these checks are very quick, but when the dfd is for a file on a NFS mount with the actimeo=0, each permission check goes out onto the wire. The result is 2 identical ACCESS calls. Given that these codepaths are fairly "hot", I think it makes sense to eliminate the permission check in path_init and simply assume that the caller will eventually check the permissions before proceeding. Reported-by: Dave Wysochanski <dwysocha@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
This commit is contained in:
@@ -1903,6 +1903,7 @@ static int path_init(int dfd, const char *name, unsigned int flags,
|
|||||||
get_fs_pwd(current->fs, &nd->path);
|
get_fs_pwd(current->fs, &nd->path);
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
} else {
|
} else {
|
||||||
|
/* Caller must check execute permissions on the starting path component */
|
||||||
struct fd f = fdget_raw(dfd);
|
struct fd f = fdget_raw(dfd);
|
||||||
struct dentry *dentry;
|
struct dentry *dentry;
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
@@ -1916,12 +1917,6 @@ static int path_init(int dfd, const char *name, unsigned int flags,
|
|||||||
fdput(f);
|
fdput(f);
|
||||||
return -ENOTDIR;
|
return -ENOTDIR;
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
retval = inode_permission(dentry->d_inode, MAY_EXEC);
|
|
||||||
if (retval) {
|
|
||||||
fdput(f);
|
|
||||||
return retval;
|
|
||||||
}
|
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
nd->path = f.file->f_path;
|
nd->path = f.file->f_path;
|
||||||
|
Reference in New Issue
Block a user