On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 06:41:15PM +0200, Lukas Czerner wrote: > Currently punch hole and collapse range fallocate operation are not > allowed on append only file. This should be case for zero range as well. > Fix it by allowing only pure fallocate (possibly with keep size set). > > Signed-off-by: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > v2: Change the condition to be future proof as suggested by hch > > fs/open.c | 6 ++---- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/open.c b/fs/open.c > index 631aea81..fe48b2f 100644 > --- a/fs/open.c > +++ b/fs/open.c > @@ -254,11 +254,9 @@ int do_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t offset, loff_t len) > return -EBADF; > > /* > - * It's not possible to punch hole or perform collapse range > - * on append only file > + * We can only allow pure fallocate on append only files > */ > - if (mode & (FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE | FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE) > - && IS_APPEND(inode)) > + if (mode & ~FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE && IS_APPEND(inode)) if ((mode & ~FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE) && IS_APPEND(inode)) gcc normally complains when you mix & and && in the same logic statement without () to separate the logic. I agree with gcc here, because the () indicate the intent of the logic and make it easy to determine that the & and && haven't been mixed up or fat-fingered... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
