On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 06:27:59PM -0700, Allison Collins wrote: > Delayed operations cannot return error codes. So we must check for > these conditions first before starting set or remove operations > > Signed-off-by: Allison Collins <allison.henderson@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr.c > index 5dcb19f..626d4a98 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr.c > @@ -458,6 +458,27 @@ xfs_attr_set( > goto out_trans_cancel; > > xfs_trans_ijoin(args.trans, dp, 0); > + > + error = xfs_has_attr(&args); > + if (error == -EEXIST) { > + if (name->type & ATTR_CREATE) > + goto out_trans_cancel; > + else > + name->type |= ATTR_REPLACE; > + } > + > + if (error == -ENOATTR && (name->type & ATTR_REPLACE)) > + goto out_trans_cancel; > + > + if (name->type & ATTR_REPLACE) { > + name->type &= ~ATTR_REPLACE; > + error = xfs_attr_remove_args(&args); > + if (error) > + goto out_trans_cancel; > + > + name->type |= ATTR_CREATE; I thought _set_args already handled the remove part of replacing an attr? And I thought that it did this with an atomic rename? Won't this break the atomicity of attr replacement? --D > + } > + > error = xfs_attr_set_args(&args); > if (error) > goto out_trans_cancel; > @@ -543,6 +564,10 @@ xfs_attr_remove( > */ > xfs_trans_ijoin(args.trans, dp, 0); > > + error = xfs_has_attr(&args); > + if (error == -ENOATTR) > + goto out; > + > error = xfs_attr_remove_args(&args); > if (error) > goto out; > -- > 2.7.4 >