| Message ID | 509B8197.2090601@cn.fujitsu.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 08/11/12 20:55, Miao Xie wrote: > In kernel, qgroupid 0 is a special number when we run the quota group > limit command. > > So, we should not be able to create a quota group whose id is 0, > otherwise the kernel can't deal with it. Fix it. This is probably a stupid question - but if its not meant to be possible to create such a thing shouldn't this be fixed in the kernel (as well as here) to reject attempts from user space to create it? Otherwise it's possible for a non-aware program (or a user who is playing) to still create it. cheers, Chris
On fri, 09 Nov 2012 10:33:52 +1100, Chris Samuel wrote: > On 08/11/12 20:55, Miao Xie wrote: > >> In kernel, qgroupid 0 is a special number when we run the quota group >> limit command. >> >> So, we should not be able to create a quota group whose id is 0, >> otherwise the kernel can't deal with it. Fix it. > > This is probably a stupid question - but if its not meant to be possible > to create such a thing shouldn't this be fixed in the kernel (as well as > here) to reject attempts from user space to create it? > > Otherwise it's possible for a non-aware program (or a user who is > playing) to still create it. Right. It also should be fixed in the kernel side, the patch is coming. But since we know which number is valid or not, it is better that we also check the arguments in the user tool before they are passed into the kernel. So, we can avoid trapping into the kernel, which will waste time, and output the error information as soon as possible. Thanks Miao -- 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
Hi Miao, On Mon, November 12, 2012 at 03:21 (+0100), Miao Xie wrote: > On fri, 09 Nov 2012 10:33:52 +1100, Chris Samuel wrote: >> On 08/11/12 20:55, Miao Xie wrote: >> >>> In kernel, qgroupid 0 is a special number when we run the quota group >>> limit command. >>> >>> So, we should not be able to create a quota group whose id is 0, >>> otherwise the kernel can't deal with it. Fix it. >> >> This is probably a stupid question - but if its not meant to be possible >> to create such a thing shouldn't this be fixed in the kernel (as well as >> here) to reject attempts from user space to create it? >> >> Otherwise it's possible for a non-aware program (or a user who is >> playing) to still create it. > > Right. It also should be fixed in the kernel side, the patch is coming. > > But since we know which number is valid or not, it is better that we also check > the arguments in the user tool before they are passed into the kernel. So, we > can avoid trapping into the kernel, which will waste time, and output the error > information as soon as possible. Have the kernel return with errno EINVAL is the way everyone else (I know about) does this. I would avoid doing a check more than once where ever possible. Primarily, because duplicating checks is error prone and in case of a kernel interface it complicates future changes. -Jan -- 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
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 07:25:08 +0100, Jan Schmidt wrote: >>>> In kernel, qgroupid 0 is a special number when we run the quota group >>>> limit command. >>>> >>>> So, we should not be able to create a quota group whose id is 0, >>>> otherwise the kernel can't deal with it. Fix it. >>> >>> This is probably a stupid question - but if its not meant to be possible >>> to create such a thing shouldn't this be fixed in the kernel (as well as >>> here) to reject attempts from user space to create it? >>> >>> Otherwise it's possible for a non-aware program (or a user who is >>> playing) to still create it. >> >> Right. It also should be fixed in the kernel side, the patch is coming. >> >> But since we know which number is valid or not, it is better that we also check >> the arguments in the user tool before they are passed into the kernel. So, we >> can avoid trapping into the kernel, which will waste time, and output the error >> information as soon as possible. > > Have the kernel return with errno EINVAL is the way everyone else (I know about) > does this. > > I would avoid doing a check more than once where ever possible. Primarily, > because duplicating checks is error prone and in case of a kernel interface it > complicates future changes. You've got a point there. I'll send out the kernel patch. Thanks Miao -- 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
diff --git a/cmds-qgroup.c b/cmds-qgroup.c index 70019d0..dfff1b9 100644 --- a/cmds-qgroup.c +++ b/cmds-qgroup.c @@ -86,6 +86,10 @@ static int qgroup_create(int create, int argc, char **argv) args.create = create; args.qgroupid = parse_qgroupid(argv[1]); + if (!args.qgroupid) { + fprintf(stderr, "ERROR: qgroup 0 is not supported\n"); + return 30; + } fd = open_file_or_dir(path); if (fd < 0) { fprintf(stderr, "ERROR: can't access '%s'\n", path);