On Tue 28-01-14 19:26:08, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Assorted stuff; the biggest pile here is Christoph's ACL series. > > Plus assorted cleanups and fixes all over the place... There will be > > another pile later this week. > > The posix_acl_chmod() code looks wrong. > > Not that it looked right before either, but whatever. The code > basically looks like some variation of this in most setattr() > implementations: > > if (ia_valid & ATTR_MODE) > rc = posix_acl_chmod(inode, inode->i_mode); > > but the mode we're changing to (and what ATTR_MODE guards) is actually > attr->ia_mode, not inode->i_mode. Yes, but posix_acl_chmod() is called after setattr_copy() was done so inode->i_mode should be the same as attr->ia_mode. Whether i_mode or ia_mode is mode logical depends on whether you view posix_acl_chmod() as "sync current i_mode into acls" or "reflect this i_mode change in acls". I agree the function name suggests more the latter semantics. > And quite frankly, passing in inode->i_mode looks stupid, since we're > already passing in the inode pointer, so that's just redundant and > pointless information. Yes, it looks stupid. We could almost drop that argument, except that f2fs tries to play some tricks with i_mode and stores i_mode in a different place when acls are enabled. Huh? Jaegeuk, can you explain why are you doing that? Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- 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
