From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA74129DF7 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 09:38:46 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA5E7304064 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 07:38:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id jjug16tOYnVTR3EF (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 07:38:46 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 10:38:35 -0500 From: Brian Foster Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] xfs: xfs_ioctl_setxattr rework Message-ID: <20150129153834.GJ17652@laptop.bfoster> References: <1422328486-24661-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1422328486-24661-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: iustin@k1024.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 02:14:37PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > Hi folks, > > This is a series I started a few months ago when we first started > talking about the issues with extent size hints on directories and > the project ID inherit flags being set on regular files. The code > is particularly nice and has no clear definition of what sort > of changes we allow in the XFS_IOC_FSSETXATTR ioctl. > > The first thing the series does is kill the FSX_* flags and separate > out the two different use cases for the xfs_ioctl_setattr() > function. The first is just changing a constrained set of flags via > the xfs_ioc_setxflags(), and the second is supporting > xfs_ioc_fssetxattr(). Factoring out the part of the code that sets > just the inode flags appropriately allows us to kill the FSX_* flags > completely. > > The next patch then relaxes the overly defensive approach to > restricting XFS_IOC_FSSETXATTR to only the init namespace. We really > only need to restrict project ID changes - allowing changes to other > parts of the inode are managed by user/group permissions which are > already user namespace aware. > > The next part of the patch set factors out the validity checking > of extent size changes and project ID changes from the setattr > functions, making it much clearer the separation between checks and > actions performed by xfs_ioctl_setattr() function. > > Finally, with all these changes, Iustin Pop's extent size change > validity checking patch is ported on top. That now becomes a simple, > obvious set of changes to an isolated function, and i've added > comments to explain the rules allowing extent size hints to be > changed. > > Comments, thoughts, flames, etc all welcome. > All in all this looks like a nice cleanup to me. By the way, you've got "xfs; ..." in some of the patch/mail headers instead of "xfs: ..." Brian > - Dave. > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@oss.sgi.com > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs