On 2025/4/27 10:56, Gao Xiang wrote:
Hi Hongbo,
On 2025/4/27 10:49, Hongbo Li wrote:
On 2025/4/27 10:15, Gao Xiang wrote:
Create one if the file doesn't exist.
Fixes: b6b741d8daaf ("erofs-utils: lib: get rid of tmpfile()")
I think the real fixes should be Fixes: bbeec3c93076 ("erofs-utils:
mkfs: add extra blob device support").
Prior to b6b741d8daaf, the functionality is ok since
fopen(..,"wb") will create the file too.
Sorry, you're right, I misread that.
Signed-off-by: Gao Xiang <hsiang...@linux.alibaba.com>
---
lib/blobchunk.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lib/blobchunk.c b/lib/blobchunk.c
index e6386d6..301f46a 100644
--- a/lib/blobchunk.c
+++ b/lib/blobchunk.c
@@ -627,7 +627,8 @@ int erofs_blob_init(const char *blobfile_path,
erofs_off_t chunksize)
blobfile = erofs_tmpfile();
multidev = false;
} else {
- blobfile = open(blobfile_path, O_WRONLY | O_BINARY);
+ blobfile = open(blobfile_path, O_WRONLY | O_CREAT |
+ O_TRUNC | O_BINARY, 0666);
To maintain consistency, is it better to set the default permission to
0644?
I tend to switch all modes to 0666 around the codebase
in the future, since umask(022) will mask them into 0644.
but 0644 can clearly show which permissions are set (the default umask
022 won't change anything). Or if we need to enforce a specific mode,
can we umask to 0 at the beginning instead of relying on the default umask?
By the way, I have another doubt (just occurred to me when seeing
O_TRUNC, though it might be unrelated to this change): the chunk-based
format can't be used together with the "--increase" option. Should we
add a warning for that?
Thanks,
Hongbo
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
