On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 8:17 AM, Christoph Hellwig [off-list ref] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:08:31AM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
quoted
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.
quoted
quoted
quoted
+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.
Those are two different cases: the first is where ext4_set_richacl is
called with a NULL acl to remove an existing ACL; the second is where
ext4_set_richacl is called with a mode-equivalent ACL to set the mode
and remove any existing ACL.
The check for mode-equivalent ACLs is in __ext4_set_richacl and not in
ext4_set_richacl because an inherited ACL (ext4_init_acl) can also be
mode-equivalent.
Andreas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html