linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] fs: New zonefs file system

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]

Date:   Wed, 25 Dec 2019 07:20:02 +0000
From:   Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@....com>
To:     "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
CC:     "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Thumshirn <jth@...nel.org>,
        Naohiro Aota <Naohiro.Aota@....com>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] fs: New zonefs file system

On 2019/12/25 15:05, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>>> +		inode->i_mode = S_IFREG;
>>
>> i_mode &= ~S_IRWXUGO; ?
> 
> Yes, indeed that is better. checkpatch.pl does spit out a warning if one
> uses the S_Ixxx macros though. See below.

Please disregard this comment. checkpatch is fine. For some reasons I
had warnings in the past but they are now gone. So using the macros
instead of the harder to read hard-coded values.

> 
>>
>> Note that clearing the mode flags won't prevent programs with an
>> existing writable fd from being able to call write().  I'd imagine that
>> they'd hit EIO pretty fast though, so that might not matter.
>>
>>> +		zone->wp = zone->start;
>>> +	} else if (zone->cond == BLK_ZONE_COND_READONLY) {
>>> +		inode->i_flags |= S_IMMUTABLE;
>>> +		inode->i_mode &= ~(0222); /* S_IWUGO */
>>
>> Might as well just use S_IWUGO directly here?

Yes, I did in v4.

> Because checkpatch spits out a warning if I do. I would prefer using the
> macro as I find it much easier to read. Should I just ignore checkpatch
> warning ?

My mistake. No warnings :)


-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research