Strange behaviour with sappend flag set on ZFS

[Gary Jennejohn]

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:24:42 +0200
Michael Naef <cal at linu.gs> wrote:

> Hi all
> 
> On Friday 24 September 2010 01:15:55 Markus Gebert wrote:
> 
> > CURRENT and STABLE-8 seem to be affected to. The following patch
> > seems to fix it (at least Michi's test case works fine with
> > it):
> > 
> > ----
> > diff -ru
> > ../src/sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zfs_vnops
> > .c ./sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zfs_vnops.c
> > ---
> > ../src/sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zfs_vnops
> > .c   2010-05-19 08:49:52.000000000 +0200 +++
> > ./sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/zfs_vnops.c   
> >     2010-09-23 23:24:43.549846948 +0200 @@ -709,7 +709,7 @@
> >          */
> >         pflags = zp->z_phys->zp_flags;
> >         if ((pflags & (ZFS_IMMUTABLE | ZFS_READONLY)) ||
> > -           ((pflags & ZFS_APPENDONLY) && !(ioflag & FAPPEND) &&
> > +           ((pflags & ZFS_APPENDONLY) && !(ioflag & IO_APPEND)
> > && (uio->uio_loffset < zp->z_phys->zp_size))) {
> > ZFS_EXIT(zfsvfs);
> >                 return (EPERM);
> > ----
> > 
> > Can someone commit this if the patch is ok? Or should I (or
> > Michi) open a PR?
> 
> Whats the next step? Is anyboby willing and able to commit the 
> patch or should/must I open a PR? (Having a patch for bash which 
> solves the most urgent problem, though - but I need a decision.)
> 

Sending a PR is always a good idea - it ends up in the tracking
system and doesn't get lost in the mailing-list noise.

--
Gary Jennejohn