On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 09:37:45PM +0800, Xiao Yang wrote: > Current ioctl(FSSETXATTR) ignores unsupported xflags silently > so it it not clear for user to know unsupported xflags. > For example, use ioctl(FSSETXATTR) to set dax flag on kernel > v4.4 which doesn't support dax flag: > -------------------------------- > # xfs_io -f -c "chattr +x" testfile;echo $? > 0 > # xfs_io -c "lsattr" testfile > ----------------X testfile > -------------------------------- > > Add check to report unsupported info as ioctl(SETXFLAGS) does. > > Signed-off-by: Xiao Yang <yangx.jy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c | 4 ++++ > include/uapi/linux/fs.h | 8 ++++++++ > 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c > index 6f22a66777cd..cfe7f20c94fe 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_ioctl.c > @@ -1439,6 +1439,10 @@ xfs_ioctl_setattr( > > trace_xfs_ioctl_setattr(ip); > > + /* Check if fsx_xflags have unsupported xflags */ > + if (fa->fsx_xflags & ~FS_XFLAG_ALL) > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; Shouldn't this be in vfs_ioc_fssetxattr_check, since we're checking against all the vfs defined XFLAGS? --D > + > code = xfs_ioctl_setattr_check_projid(ip, fa); > if (code) > return code; > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/fs.h b/include/uapi/linux/fs.h > index f44eb0a04afd..31b6856f6877 100644 > --- a/include/uapi/linux/fs.h > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/fs.h > @@ -142,6 +142,14 @@ struct fsxattr { > #define FS_XFLAG_COWEXTSIZE 0x00010000 /* CoW extent size allocator hint */ > #define FS_XFLAG_HASATTR 0x80000000 /* no DIFLAG for this */ > > +#define FS_XFLAG_ALL \ > + (FS_XFLAG_REALTIME | FS_XFLAG_PREALLOC | FS_XFLAG_IMMUTABLE | \ > + FS_XFLAG_APPEND | FS_XFLAG_SYNC | FS_XFLAG_NOATIME | FS_XFLAG_NODUMP | \ > + FS_XFLAG_RTINHERIT | FS_XFLAG_PROJINHERIT | FS_XFLAG_NOSYMLINKS | \ > + FS_XFLAG_EXTSIZE | FS_XFLAG_EXTSZINHERIT | FS_XFLAG_NODEFRAG | \ > + FS_XFLAG_FILESTREAM | FS_XFLAG_DAX | FS_XFLAG_COWEXTSIZE | \ > + FS_XFLAG_HASATTR) > + > /* the read-only stuff doesn't really belong here, but any other place is > probably as bad and I don't want to create yet another include file. */ > > -- > 2.25.1 > > >