Messages in this thread | | | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: Possible coding issue in udf?? | Date | Sun, 15 May 2011 08:14:02 -0700 |
| |
Alex Davis <alex14641@yahoo.com> writes:
> In fs/udf/inode.c, line 1455, linux 2.6.35, there is the following code: > > udfperms = ((inode->i_mode & S_IRWXO)) | > ((inode->i_mode & S_IRWXG) << 2) | > ((inode->i_mode & S_IRWXU) << 4); > > Shouldn't we be shifting by 3 bits? i.e: > udfperms = ((inode->i_mode & S_IRWXO)) | > ((inode->i_mode & S_IRWXG) << 3) | > ((inode->i_mode & S_IRWXU) << 6); > > The S_I.. constants are all defined in include/linux/stat.h as 3-bit values. > > I will send a patch if needed.
I would suggest you test it first. Put in a UDF disk that triggers this case (verify with a printk). Check in ls -l if the permissions are correct or wrong.
-Andi
-- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
| |