xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 6/9] xfs: XFS_IOCTL_SETXATTR can run in user namespaces

To: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] xfs: XFS_IOCTL_SETXATTR can run in user namespaces
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 18:44:16 +1100
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, iustin@xxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20150130030411.GA22916@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1422328486-24661-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1422328486-24661-7-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150129153515.GF17652@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150129235315.GG6282@dastard> <20150130030411.GA22916@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:04:11PM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:53:15AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:35:15AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > Why not use != here? Looks fine, anyways:
> > 
> > Because ^ has an implicit cast of the variables to boolean (i.e flag
> > set or not), whereas != will only work if XFS_XFLAG_PROJINHERIT =
> > XFS_DIFLAG_PROJINHERIT. Given that the moment we add more DIFLAGs to
> > the xfs inode, the current "XFLAG value must match DIFLAG value"
> > rule is going to be broken, I think that logical evaluation is a
> > much safer practice for these types of comparisons.
> > 
> 
> Hrm, I'm not following how a boolean cast occurs here. Isn't ^ a bitwise
> operation?

Ah, yes, you are right. I'mi not sure what type of crack I was
smoking this morning (or when I wrote it). I'll fix it up....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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