On Tue Apr 18, 2023 at 10:26 AM CEST, Johannes Berg wrote:
Hello,
Thank you for your review!
> On Fri, 2023-04-14 at 19:19 +0200, Marko Petrović wrote:
> > > > +++ b/fs/hostfs/hostfs.h
> > > > @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@
> > > > * is on, and remove the appropriate bits from attr->ia_mode (attr is a
> > > >
On Fri, 2023-04-14 at 19:19 +0200, Marko Petrović wrote:
> > > +++ b/fs/hostfs/hostfs.h
> > > @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@
> > > * is on, and remove the appropriate bits from attr->ia_mode (attr is a
> > > * "struct iattr *"). -BlaisorBlade
> > > */
> > > +extern int use_xattr;
> >
> >
> > That seems
- Ursprüngliche Mail -
> Von: "Marko Petrović"
> About using -1 for uid and gid, in documentation for chown it is stated
> that -1 shall be used if the desired value should not be changed, since
> normally chown(2) accepts both uid and gid for changing in one system
> call.
> In the concre
On Fri Apr 14, 2023 at 12:54 PM CEST, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> - Ursprüngliche Mail -
> > Von: "Marko Petrović"
> > +static int uml_chown(const char *pathname, unsigned int owner, unsigned int
> > group)
>
> Is there a specific reason why you are not using uid_t and gid_t?
>
> > +{
> >
On Fri Apr 14, 2023 at 9:40 AM CEST, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-04-14 at 04:33 +0200, Marko Petrović wrote:
> > Fix GID assignment error in uml_chown() and add support for correct
> > behavior when parent directory has SETGID bit.
>
>
> That was the change for 'v2' I guess, but you should
- Ursprüngliche Mail -
> Von: "Marko Petrović"
> +static int uml_chown(const char *pathname, unsigned int owner, unsigned int
> group)
Is there a specific reason why you are not using uid_t and gid_t?
> +{
> + int status;
> +
> + if (use_xattr) {
> + if (owner != -1)
On Fri, 2023-04-14 at 04:33 +0200, Marko Petrović wrote:
> Fix GID assignment error in uml_chown() and add support for correct
> behavior when parent directory has SETGID bit.
That was the change for 'v2' I guess, but you should document here what
the new code does and why, probably a good chunk
