On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:08:31AM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > The xattr representation is the same on disk and at the xattr syscall > layer, and so richacl_from_xattr is used for converting into the > in-memory representation in both cases. The error codes are not the > same when a user supplies an invalid value via setxattr or NFS and > when an invalid xattr is read from disk though. I'll add a parameter > to richacl_from_xattr to make this more explicit. Better add a wrapper instead of a parameter. > > >> +static int > >> +__ext4_set_richacl(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode, struct richacl *acl) > >> +{ > >> + const int name_index = EXT4_XATTR_INDEX_RICHACL; > >> + umode_t mode = inode->i_mode; > >> + int retval, size; > >> + void *value; > >> + > >> + if (richacl_equiv_mode(acl, &mode) == 0) { > >> + inode->i_ctime = ext4_current_time(inode); > >> + inode->i_mode = mode; > >> + ext4_mark_inode_dirty(handle, inode); > >> + return __ext4_remove_richacl(handle, inode); > >> + } > > > > Should this check for a NULL acl instead of special casing that > > in ext4_set_richacl? > > I'm not sure I understand what you mean. When the ext4_set_richacl checks for a NULL acl pointer and then calls into __ext4_remove_richacl. I'd rather have that special casing in one place. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html