linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Add support to check for FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE and FALLOC_FL_ZERO

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <pan$5cc93$d335db32$6c6335c1$bc0930b9@cox.net>
Date:	Fri, 1 Aug 2014 01:49:08 +0000 (UTC)
From:	Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@....net>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add support to check for FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE  and
 FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE crap modes

Nicholas Krause posted on Thu, 31 Jul 2014 13:53:33 -0400 as excerpted:

> This adds checks for the stated modes as if they are crap we will return
> error not supported.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@...il.com>
> ---
>  fs/btrfs/file.c |    3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/file.c b/fs/btrfs/file.c index 1f2b99c..599495a
> 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/file.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/file.c @@ -2490,7 +2490,8 @@
> static long btrfs_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode,
>  	alloc_end = round_up(offset + len, blocksize);
>  
>  	/* Make sure we aren't being give some crap mode */
> -	if (mode & ~(FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE | FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE))
> +	if (mode & ~(FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE | FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE| +
> FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE | FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE))
>  		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>  
>  	if (mode & FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE)

Is the supporting code already there?

You're removing the EOPNOTSUPP errors, but the code doesn't add the 
support, just removes the errors in the check for it, yet your comment 
doesn't point out that the support is actually already there with a 
pointer to either the commit adding it or the functions supporting it, as 
it should if that's true and the implementing patch simply forgot to 
remove those checks.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

--
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/