Re: [PATCH 14/16] act: use credential guards in acct_write_process()

On Tue, Nov 4, 2025 at 12:04 AM Linus Torvalds
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 3 Nov 2025 at 20:27, Christian Brauner <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >         /* Perform file operations on behalf of whoever enabled accounting */
> > -       cred = override_creds(file->f_cred);
> > -
> > +       with_creds(file->f_cred);
>
> I'd almost prefer if we *only* did "scoped_with_creds()" and didn't
> have this version at all.
>
> Most of the cases want that anyway, and the couple of plain
> "with_creds()" cases look like they would only be cleaned up by making
> the cred scoping more explicit.
>
> What do you think?

I had a similar reaction but for another reason.

The 'with' lingo reminds me of python with statement (e.g.
with open_file('example.txt', 'w') as file:), which implies a scope.
So in my head I am reading "with_creds" as with_creds_do.

Add to that the dubious practice (IMO) of scoped statements
without an explicit {} scope and this can become a source of
human brainos, but maybe the only problematic brain is mine..

Thanks,
Amir.