[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfstests: fix up fs_perms test used by 126

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfstests: fix up fs_perms test used by 126
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:47:16 -0600
Cc: xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Theodore Tso <tytso@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20100208194058.GC9527@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4B6C4E81.6060201@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20100208194058.GC9527@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Thunderbird (Macintosh/20090812)
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 10:59:45AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> @@ -53,7 +53,8 @@ int main( int argc, char *argv[]) {
>>                cgroupId = atoi(argv[3]);
>>                userId = atoi(argv[4]);
>>                groupId = atoi(argv[5]);
>> -              fperm[0] = *argv[6];
>> +              strncpy(fperm, argv[6], 3);
>> +              fperm[2] = '\0';
> This still looks rather weird to me.  What's the reason for copying
> the string into a fixed length buffer?  Why not leave fperm as a pointer
> to the original argument?

eh that's probably better, I guess I was just thinking copy
based on how it was before.  (which copied the char, right, it
didn't assign a pointer, unless I'm short on coffee today...)

OTOH fopen only takes 2 chars anyway.  But probably no reason to
truncate what was given, just fail if it's something that's wrong...

> The rest of the patch looks fine, but a clean up pass on the whole
> file wouldn't hurt either, it's a grotty mess..

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>