| To: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] xfstests: fix up fs_perms test used by 126 |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 8 Feb 2010 14:40:58 -0500 |
| Cc: | xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Theodore Tso <tytso@xxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <4B6C4E81.6060201@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <4B6C4E81.6060201@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) |
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?
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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 11/11] fs/xfs: Correct NULL test, Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Inode reclaim fixes (was Re: 2.6.31 xfs_fs_destroy_inode: cannot reclaim), Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | [PATCH] xfstests: fix up fs_perms test used by 126, Eric Sandeen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] xfstests: fix up fs_perms test used by 126, Eric Sandeen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |