On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 04:14:41PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 05:05:14PM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 11:08:58AM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 05:02:37PM +0100, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 10:28:50 -0500
> > > > Vivek Goyal <vgo...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 11:37:19AM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > [..]
> > > > > > @@ -1727,36 +1764,38 @@ static void lo_create(fuse_req_t req,
> > > > > > fuse_ino_t parent, const char *name,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > update_open_flags(lo->writeback, lo->allow_direct_io, fi);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - fd = openat(parent_inode->fd, name, (fi->flags | O_CREAT) &
> > > > > > ~O_NOFOLLOW,
> > > > > > - mode);
> > > > > > + /* Try to create a new file but don't open existing files */
> > > > > > + fd = openat(parent_inode->fd, name, fi->flags | O_CREAT |
> > > > > > O_EXCL, mode);
> > > > > > err = fd == -1 ? errno : 0;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > lo_restore_cred(&old);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - if (!err) {
> > > > > > - ssize_t fh;
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > - pthread_mutex_lock(&lo->mutex);
> > > > > > - fh = lo_add_fd_mapping(lo, fd);
> > > > > > - pthread_mutex_unlock(&lo->mutex);
> > > > > > - if (fh == -1) {
> > > > > > - close(fd);
> > > > > > - err = ENOMEM;
> > > > > > - goto out;
> > > > > > - }
> > > > > > + /* Ignore the error if file exists and O_EXCL was not given */
> > > > > > + if (err && !(err == EEXIST && !(fi->flags & O_EXCL))) {
> > > > >
> > > > > Can this check be simplified to.
> > > > > if (err && (err == EEXIST && (fi->flags & O_EXCL)) {
> > > >
> > > > I guess you meant :
> > > >
> > > > if (err && (err != EEXIST || fi->flags & O_EXCL) {
> > >
> > > This sounds correct. I forgot to take into account that if error is
> > > not -EEXIST, we still want to bail out irrespective of O_EXCL.
> >
> > I thought about De Morgan's law too but found the OR expression is not
> > easier to read than the AND expression :(. If you prefer it written this
> > way I can change it though.
>
> I personally find this one to read. And not because of AND but because
> of double logical negation (!x) in previous expression.
>
> But I am not particular about it. If you don't find it easier to
> read, I can live with previous one.Okay, I'll convert it. Dave also mentioned he finds the AND version strange. Stefan
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
