Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2025 05:29:05 +0300 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: James Gritton <jamie@freebsd.org> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, dev-commits-src-all@freebsd.org, dev-commits-src-main@freebsd.org Subject: Re: git: 851dc7f859c2 - main - jail: add jail descriptors Message-ID: <aLuccc_9QYeYk2nJ@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <282327ee69d5c26f379961c12e19dfbe@freebsd.org> References: <202509042031.584KVpxY000408@gitrepo.freebsd.org> <aLokHDP-EMa1LR0D@kib.kiev.ua> <da6b56365c188ce55bb4e878636bc911@freebsd.org> <aLpxozYUfi_S-U7b@kib.kiev.ua> <282327ee69d5c26f379961c12e19dfbe@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 10:24:16AM -0700, James Gritton wrote: > On 2025-09-04 22:14, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 04, 2025 at 09:43:13PM -0700, James Gritton wrote: > > > On 2025-09-04 16:43, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > > > jd = malloc(sizeof(*jd), M_JAILDESC, M_WAITOK | M_ZERO); > > > > error = falloc_caps(td, &fp, fdp, 0, NULL); > > > > finit(fp, priv_check_cred(fp->f_cred, PRIV_JAIL_SET) == 0 > > > > ? FREAD | FWRITE : FREAD, DTYPE_JAILDESC, jd, &jaildesc_ops); > > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^ '?' should be placed on the previous line > > > > > > I wasn't aware of this requirement; style(9) is silent on it. > > In fact style(9) contains the explicit requirement: > > If you have to wrap a long statement, put the operator at the end > > of the > > line. > > There are a lot more of this pattern repeated in the commit. > > Ah, yes it says that. I was scanning examples looking for the "?", > and missed the general statement. I don't think it's the best move > for the ?: operator in particular, but I appreciate consistency in > style. I can change that in kern_jaildesc.c, but it's a little > trickier in kern_jail.c since it's already replete with me having done > it wrong over the years. > > > > > Generated files should have been committed as a follow-up, not in the > > > > same commit as written code. > > > > > > The FreeBSD Wiki explicitly allows it in the same commit. > > I always objected against this practice. For instance, the commit > > message > > for this commit is even less useful because most of the limit was > > filled > > with the auto-generated stuff, instead of the code. Same for reading > > the > > commits with log. > > > > Could you please point me to the wiki page? > > https://wiki.freebsd.org/AddingSyscalls#Committing > > > > > jaildesc_find() returns EBADF when passed file type is not DTYPE_JAIL. > > > > Normally EBADF means that the object underlying the file is invalidated, > > > > like vnode is reclaimed, tty is revoked, etc. For the wrong type, EINVAL > > > > should be returned. > > > > > > That's part of the code that I lifted from process descriptors, nearly > > > identical to procdesc_find. A check of other c_type checks shows > > > EBADF isn't uncommon. > > So procdesc is wrong as well, I think. > > The existing code base is quite inconsistent. I some EINVAL, some > EBADF (procdesc, kqueue, fcntl), also EPERM, ENODEV, ENOTSUPP, EPIPE, > and ENOTSOCK. EINVAL is the most common, but there are enough EBADF > that I feel I can keep it. kern_event.c is relatively consistent to report EBADF when kqueue(2) is called on closing kqueue, which essentially means that it is reclaimed under it. kern_descrip.c' EBADFs are right: mostly EBADF is returned when fget() failed. The only incorrect use EBADF are two places in sys_procdesc.c, and I will fix them. So no, I do not agree with the frivolous use of EBADF in new code.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?aLuccc_9QYeYk2nJ>