lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Generic infrastructure for acls
On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 00:14:22 +0200
Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@suse.de> wrote:

> +generic_acl_list(struct inode *inode, struct generic_acl_operations *ops,
> + int type, char *list, size_t list_size)
> +{
> + struct posix_acl *acl;
> + const char *name;
> + size_t size;
> +
> + acl = ops->getacl(inode, type);
> + if (!acl)
> + return 0;
> + posix_acl_release(acl);
> +
> + switch(type) {
> + case ACL_TYPE_ACCESS:
> + name = POSIX_ACL_XATTR_ACCESS;
> + break;
> +
> + case ACL_TYPE_DEFAULT:
> + name = POSIX_ACL_XATTR_DEFAULT;
> + break;
> +
> + default:
> + return 0;
> + }
> + size = strlen(name) + 1;
> + if (list && size <= list_size)
> + memcpy(list, name, size);
> + return size;
> +}

That's a clumsy-looking interface. How is the caller to know that *list
got filled in? By checking the generic_acl_list() return value against
`list_size'?

If so, shouldn't this be covered in the API description (when you write
it ;))?

Or should it be returning some error code in this case?

Or should we just strdup() the thing?

Or return `name' and let the caller worry about it?

--
VGER BF report: H 1.83187e-15
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-09-01 23:47    [W:0.074 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site