Re: Possible coding issue in udf??

[Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>]

Alex Davis <alex14641@yahoo.com> writes:

> In fs/udf/inode.c, line 1455, linux 2.6.35, there is the following code:
>
> 	udfperms = ((inode->i_mode & S_IRWXO)) |
> 		   ((inode->i_mode & S_IRWXG) << 2) |
> 		   ((inode->i_mode & S_IRWXU) << 4);
>
> Shouldn't we be shifting by 3 bits? i.e:
> 	udfperms = ((inode->i_mode & S_IRWXO)) |
> 		   ((inode->i_mode & S_IRWXG) << 3) |
> 		   ((inode->i_mode & S_IRWXU) << 6);
>
> The S_I.. constants are all defined in include/linux/stat.h as 3-bit values.
>
> I will send a patch if needed.

I  would suggest you test it first. Put in a UDF disk that triggers
this case (verify with a printk). Check in ls -l if the 
permissions are correct or wrong.

-Andi

-- 
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only