From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from aserp2130.oracle.com ([141.146.126.79]:39256 "EHLO aserp2130.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751617AbeEMS0q (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 May 2018 14:26:46 -0400 Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 11:26:39 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Mark Fasheh Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] vfs: dedupe should return EPERM if permission is not granted Message-ID: <20180513182639.GB4933@magnolia> References: <20180511192651.21324-1-mfasheh@suse.de> <20180511192651.21324-3-mfasheh@suse.de> <20180512000634.GG9510@magnolia> <20180513182152.GE27915@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180513182152.GE27915@wotan.suse.de> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 06:21:52PM +0000, Mark Fasheh wrote: > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 05:06:34PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 12:26:51PM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote: > > > Right now we return EINVAL if a process does not have permission to dedupe a > > > file. This was an oversight on my part. EPERM gives a true description of > > > the nature of our error, and EINVAL is already used for the case that the > > > filesystem does not support dedupe. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mark Fasheh > > > --- > > > fs/read_write.c | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/read_write.c b/fs/read_write.c > > > index 77986a2e2a3b..8edef43a182c 100644 > > > --- a/fs/read_write.c > > > +++ b/fs/read_write.c > > > @@ -2038,7 +2038,7 @@ int vfs_dedupe_file_range(struct file *file, struct file_dedupe_range *same) > > > info->status = -EINVAL; > > > } else if (!(is_admin || (dst_file->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE) || > > > uid_eq(current_fsuid(), dst->i_uid))) { > > > - info->status = -EINVAL; > > > + info->status = -EPERM; > > > > Hmm, are we allowed to change this aspect of the kabi after the fact? > > > > Granted, we're only trading one error code for another, but will the > > existing users of this care? xfs_io won't and I assume duperemove won't > > either, but what about bees? :) > > Yeah if you see my initial e-mail I check bees and also rust-btrfs. I think > this is fine as we're simply expanding on an error code return. There's no > magic behavior expected with respect to these error codes either. Ok. No objections from me, then. Acked-by: Darrick J. Wong --D > --Mark > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html