lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Possible coding issue in udf??
Date
On 2011-05-15, at 9:14 AM, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
> 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.

Typically I would agree. In this case ir looks like the existing code doesn't make sense, because it will be overlapping the R and X bits from the adjacent U, G, and O masks.

Cheers, Andreas

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-05-15 18:59    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site