Re: Possible coding issue in udf??

[Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>]

Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> writes:

> 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.

That's the write part of UDF, so a read-only test won't trigger.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."