On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 03:49:51PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> Hmm... There has to be an implicit promise here that nobody else will
> ever try to set ATTR_KILL_SUID/ATTR_KILL_SGID and ATTR_MODE at the same
> time. Currently, that assumption is not there:
>
>
> > if (ia_valid & ATTR_KILL_SGID) {
> > attr->ia_valid &= ~ ATTR_KILL_SGID;
> > if ((mode & (S_ISGID | S_IXGRP)) == (S_ISGID | S_IXGRP)) {
> > if (!(ia_valid & ATTR_MODE)) {
> > ia_valid = attr->ia_valid |= ATTR_MODE;
> > attr->ia_mode = inode->i_mode;
> > }
> > attr->ia_mode &= ~S_ISGID;
> > }
> > }
>
> Should we perhaps just convert the above 'if (!(ia_valid & ATTR_MODE))'
> into a 'BUG_ON(ia_valid & ATTR_MODE)'?
Yes, sounds fine to me.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
