On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 06:21:52PM +0000, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 05:06:34PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 12:26:51PM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> > > Right now we return EINVAL if a process does not have permission to dedupe a
> > > file. This was an oversight on my part. EPERM gives a true description of
> > > the nature of our error, and EINVAL is already used for the case that the
> > > filesystem does not support dedupe.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@xxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > fs/read_write.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/read_write.c b/fs/read_write.c
> > > index 77986a2e2a3b..8edef43a182c 100644
> > > --- a/fs/read_write.c
> > > +++ b/fs/read_write.c
> > > @@ -2038,7 +2038,7 @@ int vfs_dedupe_file_range(struct file *file, struct file_dedupe_range *same)
> > > info->status = -EINVAL;
> > > } else if (!(is_admin || (dst_file->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE) ||
> > > uid_eq(current_fsuid(), dst->i_uid))) {
> > > - info->status = -EINVAL;
> > > + info->status = -EPERM;
> >
> > Hmm, are we allowed to change this aspect of the kabi after the fact?
> >
> > Granted, we're only trading one error code for another, but will the
> > existing users of this care? xfs_io won't and I assume duperemove won't
> > either, but what about bees? :)
>
> Yeah if you see my initial e-mail I check bees and also rust-btrfs. I think
> this is fine as we're simply expanding on an error code return. There's no
> magic behavior expected with respect to these error codes either.
Ok. No objections from me, then.
Acked-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
--D
> --Mark
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
