Re: [PATCH v18 21/22] ext4: Add richacl support

From
Christoph Hellwig <hidden>
Date
2016-03-11 14:27:19
Also in
linux-cifs, linux-ext4, linux-fsdevel, linux-nfs, linux-xfs, lkml
Reply to
Andreas Gruenbacher, 2016-02-29
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+static inline int
+ext4_acl_chmod(struct inode *inode, umode_t mode)
+{
+	if (IS_RICHACL(inode))
+		return richacl_chmod(inode, inode->i_mode);
+	return posix_acl_chmod(inode, inode->i_mode);
+}
Thi isn't ext4-specific and potentially duplicated in every caller.
Please provide this as a common helper.

Also while we're at it, the mode argument is ignore and the function
always uses inode->i_mode instead.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ext4_get_richacl(struct inode *inode)
+{
+	const int name_index = EXT4_XATTR_INDEX_RICHACL;
+	void *value = NULL;
+	struct richacl *acl = NULL;
+	int retval;
+
+	retval = ext4_xattr_get(inode, name_index, "", NULL, 0);
+	if (retval > 0) {
+		value = kmalloc(retval, GFP_NOFS);
+		if (!value)
+			return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
+		retval = ext4_xattr_get(inode, name_index, "", value, retval);
+	}
+	if (retval > 0) {
+		acl = richacl_from_xattr(&init_user_ns, value, retval);
+		if (acl == ERR_PTR(-EINVAL))
+			acl = ERR_PTR(-EIO);
Shouldn't richacl_from_xattr return the error pointer that ->get_richacl
callers expect?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+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?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+int
+ext4_init_richacl(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir)
+{
+	struct richacl *acl = richacl_create(&inode->i_mode, dir);
+	int error;
+
+	error = PTR_ERR(acl);
+	if (IS_ERR(acl))
+		return error;
	if (IS_ERR(acl))
		return PTR_ERR(acl);
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+	if (acl) {
+		error = __ext4_set_richacl(handle, inode, acl);
+		richacl_put(acl);
+	}
Shouldn't richacl_create return NULL if the ACL is equivalent to the
mode bits instead of letting every filesystem figure that out on it's
own?
Thread (54 messages) 54 messages, 6 authors, last reply 2016-03-21
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread / next series-diff position
kprevious message in thread / previous series-diff position
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help