On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 10:42:18AM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > + if (upper_32_bits(attr->attr_set)) > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + if (build_attr_flags(lower_32_bits(attr->attr_set), &kattr->attr_set)) > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + > > > + if (upper_32_bits(attr->attr_clr)) > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + if (build_attr_flags(lower_32_bits(attr->attr_clr), &kattr->attr_clr)) > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > What is so magic about the upper and lower 32 bits? > > Nothing apart from the fact that they arent't currently valid. I can > think about reworking these lines. Or do you already have a preferred > way of doing this in mind? Just turn the attr_flags argument to build_attr_flags into a u64 and the first sanity check there will catch all invalid flags, no matter where they are places. That should also generate more efficient code. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
