On wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:02:56 +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
>
>
> On 11/28/2012 11:05 AM, Miao Xie wrote:
>> On wed, 28 Nov 2012 02:29:17 +0800, Anand jain wrote:
>>> /*
>>> @@ -2441,6 +2443,14 @@ static inline bool btrfs_root_readonly(struct btrfs_root *root)
>>> {
>>> return (root->root_item.flags & cpu_to_le64(BTRFS_ROOT_SUBVOL_RDONLY)) != 0;
>>> }
>>> +static inline char * btrfs_root_label(struct btrfs_root_item *root_item)
>>> +{
>>> + return (root_item->label);
>>> +}
>>> +static inline void btrfs_root_set_label(struct btrfs_root_item *root_item, char *val)
>>> +{
>>> + memcpy(root_item->label, val, BTRFS_SUBVOL_LABEL_SIZE);
>>> +}
>>>
>>> /* struct btrfs_root_backup */
>>> BTRFS_SETGET_STACK_FUNCS(backup_tree_root, struct btrfs_root_backup,
>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
>>> index e58bd9d..f0b3d9d 100644
>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
>>> @@ -3725,6 +3725,57 @@ static int btrfs_ioctl_set_label(struct btrfs_root *root, void __user *arg)
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static int btrfs_ioctl_subvol_getlabel(struct btrfs_root *root,
>>> + void __user *arg)
>>> +{
>>> + char *label;
>>> +
>>> + label = btrfs_root_label(&root->root_item);
>>> + if (copy_to_user(arg, label, BTRFS_SUBVOL_LABEL_SIZE))
>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>
>> we also need lock here.
>
> yes. wish memcpy is atomic.
>
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int btrfs_ioctl_subvol_setlabel(struct file *file,
>>> + void __user *arg)
>>> +{
>>> + char label[BTRFS_SUBVOL_LABEL_SIZE+1];
>>> + struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans;
>>> + struct btrfs_root *root = BTRFS_I(fdentry(file)->d_inode)->root;
>>> + struct inode *inode = file->f_path.dentry->d_inode;
>>> + int ret;
>>> +
>>> + if (btrfs_root_readonly(root))
>>> + return -EROFS;
>>> +
>>> + if (!inode_owner_or_capable(inode))
>>> + return -EACCES;
>>> +
>>> + ret = mnt_want_write_file(file);
>>> + if (ret)
>>> + return ret;
>>> +
>>> + if (copy_from_user(label, arg, BTRFS_SUBVOL_LABEL_SIZE)) {
>>> + ret = -EFAULT;
>>> + goto out;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
>>
>> we should use a lock which belongs to the root not inode.
>
>
> I couldn't find an already defined lock which would exactly
> fit the purpose here. Do you have any idea ?
I thinks we may use ->root_times_lock, but we need change the name
to make it suitable for its role.
Thanks
Miao
>
>
> Thanks, Anand
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
