On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 8:17 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:08:31AM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
>> The xattr representation is the same on disk and at the xattr syscall
>> layer, and so richacl_from_xattr is used for converting into the
>> in-memory representation in both cases. The error codes are not the
>> same when a user supplies an invalid value via setxattr or NFS and
>> when an invalid xattr is read from disk though. I'll add a parameter
>> to richacl_from_xattr to make this more explicit.
>
> Better add a wrapper instead of a parameter.
>
>>
>> >> +static int
>> >> +__ext4_set_richacl(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode, struct richacl *acl)
>> >> +{
>> >> + const int name_index = EXT4_XATTR_INDEX_RICHACL;
>> >> + umode_t mode = inode->i_mode;
>> >> + int retval, size;
>> >> + void *value;
>> >> +
>> >> + if (richacl_equiv_mode(acl, &mode) == 0) {
>> >> + inode->i_ctime = ext4_current_time(inode);
>> >> + inode->i_mode = mode;
>> >> + ext4_mark_inode_dirty(handle, inode);
>> >> + return __ext4_remove_richacl(handle, inode);
>> >> + }
>> >
>> > Should this check for a NULL acl instead of special casing that
>> > in ext4_set_richacl?
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand what you mean. When the
>
> ext4_set_richacl checks for a NULL acl pointer and then calls into
> __ext4_remove_richacl. I'd rather have that special casing in one
> place.
Those are two different cases: the first is where ext4_set_richacl is
called with a NULL acl to remove an existing ACL; the second is where
ext4_set_richacl is called with a mode-equivalent ACL to set the mode
and remove any existing ACL.
The check for mode-equivalent ACLs is in __ext4_set_richacl and not in
ext4_set_richacl because an inherited ACL (ext4_init_acl) can also be
mode-equivalent.
Andreas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
