Hi,
On 01.12.2014 10:04, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Sun 30-11-14 00:37:36, Lino Sanfilippo wrote:
>> In fanotify_mark_remove_from_mask() a mark is destroyed if only one of both
>> bitmasks (mask or ignored_mask) of a mark is cleared. However the other mask
>> may still be set and contain information that should not be lost. Thus only
>> destroy a mark if both masks are cleared.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Lino Sanfilippo <LinoSanfilippo@xxxxxx>
>> ---
>> fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c | 6 +++++-
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c b/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c
>> index c991616..03a0dd1 100644
>> --- a/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c
>> +++ b/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c
>> @@ -488,6 +488,8 @@ static __u32 fanotify_mark_remove_from_mask(struct fsnotify_mark *fsn_mark,
>> int *destroy)
>> {
>> __u32 oldmask;
>> + __u32 new_mask;
>> + __u32 new_ignored;
>>
>> spin_lock(&fsn_mark->lock);
>> if (!(flags & FAN_MARK_IGNORED_MASK)) {
>> @@ -497,9 +499,11 @@ static __u32 fanotify_mark_remove_from_mask(struct fsnotify_mark *fsn_mark,
>> oldmask = fsn_mark->ignored_mask;
>> fsnotify_set_mark_ignored_mask_locked(fsn_mark, (oldmask & ~mask));
>> }
>> + new_mask = fsn_mark->mask;
>> + new_ignored = fsn_mark->ignored_mask;
>> spin_unlock(&fsn_mark->lock);
>>
>> - *destroy = !(oldmask & ~mask);
>> + *destroy = !(new_mask | new_ignored);
> There's no need for new variables, is there? You can just set *destroy
> under the spinlock...
>
youre right, these variables are totally unneeded. I cant remember the
reason why i introduced them (maybe leftovers from an earlier attempt).
I will resend a cleaned up version of that patch.
Regards,
Lino
--
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
