Hello,
On 05/08/13 10:59, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 16:47 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
>> From: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@xxxxxxx>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@xxxxxxx>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> This patch adjusts the code so that the alignment matches the current
>> semantics. I have no idea if it is the intended semantics, though. Should
>> the call to nfs_setsecurity also be under the else?
>>
>
>> fs/nfs/inode.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/inode.c b/fs/nfs/inode.c
>> index af6e806..d8ad685 100644
>> --- a/fs/nfs/inode.c
>> +++ b/fs/nfs/inode.c
>> @@ -463,7 +463,7 @@ nfs_fhget(struct super_block *sb, struct nfs_fh
>> *fh, struct nfs_fattr *fattr, st
>> unlock_new_inode(inode);
>> } else
>> nfs_refresh_inode(inode, fattr);
>> - nfs_setsecurity(inode, fattr, label);
>> + nfs_setsecurity(inode, fattr, label);
This call to nfs_setsecurity() is not needed. The security only needs
to be set when the i-node is created...
steved.
>> dprintk("NFS: nfs_fhget(%s/%Ld fh_crc=0x%08x ct=%d)\n",
>> inode->i_sb->s_id,
>> (long long)NFS_FILEID(inode),
>
> Hi Julia,
>
> Thanks for pointing this out! Given that the 'then' clause of the if
> statement already calls nfs_setsecurity before unlocking the inode, I
> suspect that the above _should_ really be part of the 'else' clause.
>
> That said, I can't see that calling nfs_setsecurity twice on the inode
> can cause any unintended side-effects, so I suggest that we rather queue
> the patch up for inclusion in 3.12.
> Steve and Dave, any comments?
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
