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    [W:0.022 / U:88.420 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site