[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qga: fix append file open modes for win32
From: |
Michael Roth |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qga: fix append file open modes for win32 |
Date: |
Wed, 11 Nov 2015 09:39:21 -0600 |
User-agent: |
alot/0.3.6 |
Quoting Paolo Bonzini (2015-11-11 08:49:57)
>
>
> On 11/11/2015 15:02, Michael Roth wrote:
> >> GENERIC_READ for files
> >> = FILE_READ_DATA
> >> + FILE_READ_ATTRIBUTES
> >> + FILE_READ_EA
> >> + SYNCHRONIZE
> >> + STANDARD_RIGHTS_READ (which is READ_CONTROL)
> >>
> >> GENERIC_WRITE for files
> >> = FILE_APPEND_DATA
> >> + FILE_WRITE_DATA
> >> + FILE_WRITE_ATTRIBUTES
> >> + FILE_WRITE_EA
> >> + SYNCHRONIZE
> >> + STANDARD_RIGHTS_WRITE (which is READ_CONTROL too!)
> >>
> >> Of these of course qemu-ga only needs FILE_*_DATA and possibly SYNCHRONIZE.
> >>
> >> The above description doesn't say what happens if you specify
> >> FILE_READ_DATA and FILE_APPEND_DATA together, but I guess you can expect
> >> it to just work.
> >
> > Thanks, this is very helpful. This seems to coincide with
> > FILE_GENERIC_WRITE / FILE_GENERIC_READ if you want to access the
> > bitmasks directly (though it looks like you can still add flags
> > to GENERIC_WRITE / GENERIC_READ):
> >
> >
> > https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa364399(v=vs.85).aspx
>
> Yes, I had missed the FILE_GENERIC_* definitions. I found them now in
> mingw as well, and they are exactly what you would expect (an | of the
> various flags).
>
> > Looks like the crux of it is that FILE_WRITE_DATA causes us not to ignore
> > the start offset (0) for writes, so we end up writing data at the
> > beginning of the file instead of the end.
> >
> > So I think the following
> > should work:
> >
> > a: FILE_GENERIC_WRITE & ~FILE_WRITE_DATA
> > a+: FILE_GENERIC_READ | FILE_APPEND_DATA
> >
> > FILE_APPEND_DATA by itself might work for a:, but for consistency I
> > think I'd prefer sticking with the generic set and masking out
> > FILE_WRITE_DATA.
>
> For a+ I would use any of
>
> (FILE_GENERIC_READ | FILE_GENERIC_WRITE) & ~FILE_WRITE_DATA
> GENERIC_READ | (FILE_GENERIC_WRITE & ~FILE_WRITE_DATA)
>
> Perhaps you can define this:
>
> #define FILE_GENERIC_APPEND (FILE_GENERIC_WRITE & ~FILE_WRITE_DATA)
>
> and then use
>
> a: FILE_GENERIC_APPEND
> a+: GENERIC_READ|FILE_GENERIC_APPEND
>
> or
>
> a: FILE_GENERIC_APPEND
> a+: FILE_GENERIC_READ|FILE_GENERIC_APPEND
Yah, both are more proper actually (I was relying on FILE_GENERIC_READ
already containing the other flags from FILE_GENERIC_WRITE, but that's
more likely to break in the future).
I think I prefer the former since it avoids confusion on GENERIC_READ vs.
FILE_GENERIC_READ differences.
Kirk, I'm planning on squashing this into your v2 series, so no need to
resubmit.
Thanks!
>
> ?
>
> Paolo
>