[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFz52bo7HJLNoorBW20yrLY7svVJu+BHS3KYA0Zy_kPfgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 20:28:25 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Vrabel <dvrabel@...tab.net>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] xen: xenfs fixes for 4.9-rc2
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 9:37 AM, David Vrabel <dvrabel@...tab.net> wrote:
>
> I think the changes are trivial and uncontroversial.
Hmm. Sadly, they are also buggy.
This:
if (files->mode & S_IFLNK) {
is simply wrong. The correct test for S_IFLNK is to do
if ((files->mode & S_IFMT) == S_IFLNK) {
and quite frankly, the right model is almost certainly to just do a
switch-statement that does something like
switch (files->mode & S_IFMT) {
case S_IFLNK:
...
case S_IFREG:
case 0:
....
default:
..error..
because maybe somebody wants to add other cases later (and even if
not, it's just wrong to randomly change any other mode into S_IFREG).
And while I could easily do an evil merge and fix that part up, I
really don't want to do things like that. So I'm not going to pull
this.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists