On 06/20, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2023/6/20 10:42, 何云蕾(Yunlei he) wrote:
> >
> > On 2023/6/20 8:33, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > On 2023/6/13 16:52, Yunlei He wrote:
> > > > File set both cold and hot advise bit is confusion, so
> > > > return EINVAL to avoid this case.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Yunlei He <heyun...@oppo.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > fs/f2fs/xattr.c | 3 +++
> > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/xattr.c b/fs/f2fs/xattr.c
> > > > index 213805d3592c..917f3ac9f1a1 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/f2fs/xattr.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/xattr.c
> > > > @@ -127,6 +127,9 @@ static int f2fs_xattr_advise_set(const struct
> > > > xattr_handler *handler,
> > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > >
> > > > new_advise = new_advise & FADVISE_MODIFIABLE_BITS;
> > > > + if ((new_advise & FADVISE_COLD_BIT) && (new_advise &
> > > > FADVISE_HOT_BIT))
> > > > + return -EINVAL;
Why not this to allow setting one bit only?
@@ -123,7 +123,8 @@ static int f2fs_xattr_advise_set(const struct xattr_handler
*handler,
return -EINVAL;
new_advise = *(char *)value;
- if (new_advise & ~FADVISE_MODIFIABLE_BITS)
+ if (new_advise & ~FADVISE_MODIFIABLE_BITS ||
+ new_advise == FADVISE_MODIFIABLE_BITS)
return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > Yunlei,
> > >
> > > What about the below case:
> > >
> > > 1. f2fs_xattr_advise_set(FADVISE_COLD_BIT)
> > > 2. f2fs_xattr_advise_set(FADVISE_HOT_BIT)
> >
> > Hi, Chao,
> >
> > I test this case work well with this patch, case below will return
> > -EINVAL:
> >
> > f2fs_xattr_advise_set(FADVISE_COLD_BIT | FADVISE_HOT_BIT)
>
> Correct, I missed to check below statement.
>
> new_advise |= old_advise & ~FADVISE_MODIFIABLE_BITS;
>
> Anyway, the patch looks good to me.
>
> Reviewed-by: Chao Yu <c...@kernel.org>
>
> Thanks,
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
