[PATCH 2/2] Btrfs: Fix setting umask when POSIX ACLs are not enabled

[PATCH 2/2] Btrfs: Fix setting umask when POSIX ACLs are not enabled

[Chris Ball]

We currently set sb->s_flags |= MS_POSIXACL unconditionally, which is
incorrect -- it tells the VFS that it shouldn't set umask because we
will, yet we don't set it ourselves if we aren't using POSIX ACLs, so
the umask ends up ignored.

Signed-off-by: Chris Ball <cjb@laptop.org>
---
 fs/btrfs/super.c |    2 ++
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/super.c b/fs/btrfs/super.c
index 6d6d06c..48ed1c0 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/super.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/super.c
@@ -344,7 +344,9 @@ static int btrfs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb,
 	sb->s_export_op = &btrfs_export_ops;
 	sb->s_xattr = btrfs_xattr_handlers;
 	sb->s_time_gran = 1;
+#ifdef CONFIG_BTRFS_POSIX_ACL
 	sb->s_flags |= MS_POSIXACL;
+#endif
 
 	tree_root = open_ctree(sb, fs_devices, (char *)data);
 
-- 
1.6.4


-- 
Chris Ball   <cjb@laptop.org>
One Laptop Per Child

Re: [PATCH 2/2] Btrfs: Fix setting umask when POSIX ACLs are not enabled

[Alex Dedul]

Hi Chris!

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Chris Ball <cjb@laptop.org> wrote:
> We currently set sb->s_flags |= MS_POSIXACL unconditionally, which is
> incorrect -- it tells the VFS that it shouldn't set umask because we
> will, yet we don't set it ourselves if we aren't using POSIX ACLs, so
> the umask ends up ignored.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Ball <cjb@laptop.org>
> ---
>  fs/btrfs/super.c |    2 ++
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

Works fine now! Thank you .. :)

With best regards from the Soul, Alex.