xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 0/9] xfs: xfs_ioctl_setxattr rework

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] xfs: xfs_ioctl_setxattr rework
From: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 10:38:35 -0500
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, iustin@xxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1422328486-24661-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1422328486-24661-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 02:14:37PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> This is a series I started a few months ago when we first started
> talking about the issues with extent size hints on directories and
> the project ID inherit flags being set on regular files. The code
> is particularly nice and has no clear definition of what sort
> of changes we allow in the XFS_IOC_FSSETXATTR ioctl.
> 
> The first thing the series does is kill the FSX_* flags and separate
> out the two different use cases for the xfs_ioctl_setattr()
> function. The first is just changing a constrained set of flags via
> the xfs_ioc_setxflags(), and the second is supporting
> xfs_ioc_fssetxattr(). Factoring out the part of the code that sets
> just the inode flags appropriately allows us to kill the FSX_* flags
> completely.
> 
> The next patch then relaxes the overly defensive approach to
> restricting XFS_IOC_FSSETXATTR to only the init namespace. We really
> only need to restrict project ID changes - allowing changes to other
> parts of the inode are managed by user/group permissions which are
> already user namespace aware.
> 
> The next part of the patch set factors out the validity checking
> of extent size changes and project ID changes from the setattr
> functions, making it much clearer the separation between checks and
> actions performed by xfs_ioctl_setattr() function.
> 
> Finally, with all these changes, Iustin Pop's extent size change
> validity checking patch is ported on top. That now becomes a simple,
> obvious set of changes to an isolated function, and i've added
> comments to explain the rules allowing extent size hints to be
> changed.
> 
> Comments, thoughts, flames, etc all welcome.
> 

All in all this looks like a nice cleanup to me. By the way, you've got
"xfs; ..." in some of the patch/mail headers instead of "xfs: ..."

Brian

> - Dave.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

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