Commit 0caa102da82799efaba88e234484786a9591c797 introduced the SUBVOL_SETFLAGS ioctl, which contains the following check: if (flags & ~BTRFS_SUBVOL_CREATE_ASYNC) return -EINVAL; if (flags & ~BTRFS_SUBVOL_RDONLY) return -EOPNOTSUPP; Is it intentional that 0 is the only acceptable flags value? In addition, there should probably be an inode ownership check before allowing setting subvolume flags. Regards, Dan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Dan Rosenberg wrote:> Commit 0caa102da82799efaba88e234484786a9591c797 introduced the > SUBVOL_SETFLAGS ioctl, which contains the following check: > > if (flags & ~BTRFS_SUBVOL_CREATE_ASYNC)Oops, should be: if (flags & BTRFS_SUBVOL_CREATE_ASYNC)> return -EINVAL; > > if (flags & ~BTRFS_SUBVOL_RDONLY) > return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > Is it intentional that 0 is the only acceptable flags value? In > addition, there should probably be an inode ownership check before > allowing setting subvolume flags. >Thanks for pointing it out! Fix will be sent out soon. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html