[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m2pqnjevjc.fsf@igel.home>
Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 19:13:59 +0200
From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Alex Davis <alex14641@...oo.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Possible coding issue in udf??
Alex Davis <alex14641@...oo.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);
udfperms contains three bit fields of 5 bits each, of which 3 bits are
each filled from one of the three RWX parts of i_mode, and 2 bits
(DELETE and CHATTR) are added later. Thus each of the three bit fields
are expanded from 3 to 5 bits, so that the second one needs to be
shifted by 2 and the third one by 4.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, schwab@...ux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists