On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 20:18:24 +0000
Al Viro <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 02:44:53PM -0500, AnishMulay wrote:
> > index d9d8932a7b9c9..86ba8dc25aaef 100644
> > --- a/fs/tracefs/inode.c
> > +++ b/fs/tracefs/inode.c
> > @@ -96,17 +96,7 @@ static struct tracefs_dir_ops {
> >
> > static char *get_dname(struct dentry *dentry)
> > {
> > - const char *dname;
> > - char *name;
> > - int len = dentry->d_name.len;
> > -
> > - dname = dentry->d_name.name;
> > - name = kmalloc(len + 1, GFP_KERNEL);
> > - if (!name)
> > - return NULL;
> > - memcpy(name, dname, len);
> > - name[len] = 0;
> > - return name;
> > + return kmemdup_nul(dentry->d_name.name, dentry->d_name.len, GFP_KERNEL);
> > }
>
> Why not have the callers use {take,release}_dentry_name_snapshot()
> instead of doing any allocations at all?
>
> I mean,
> static struct dentry *tracefs_syscall_mkdir(struct mnt_idmap *idmap,
> struct inode *inode, struct
> dentry *dentry,
> umode_t mode)
> {
> struct tracefs_inode *ti;
> struct name_snapshot s;
> int ret;
>
> take_dentry_name_snapshot(&s, dentry);
> ...
> ret = tracefs_ops.mkdir(s.name.name);
> release_dentry_name_snapshot(&s);
> ...
> }
>
> and similar on the rmdir side. Then remove get_dname()...
That sounds good to me.
-- Steve
