lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH -V6 09/26] vfs: Add delete child and delete self permission flags
    On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 04:07:54PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
    > On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 03:00:58PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
    > > On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 16:39:16 -0400, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
    > > > On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 10:55:31PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
    > > > > +static int may_delete(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *victim,
    > > > > + int isdir, int replace)
    > > > > {
    > > > > - int error;
    > > > > + int mask, error, is_sticky;
    > > > > + struct inode *inode = victim->d_inode;
    > > > >
    > > > > - if (!victim->d_inode)
    > > > > + if (!inode)
    > > > > return -ENOENT;
    > > > >
    > > > > BUG_ON(victim->d_parent->d_inode != dir);
    > > > > audit_inode_child(victim, dir);
    > > > >
    > > > > - error = inode_permission(dir, MAY_WRITE | MAY_EXEC);
    > > > > + mask = MAY_WRITE | MAY_EXEC | MAY_DELETE_CHILD;
    > > > > + if (replace)
    > > > > + mask |= S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) ?
    > > > > + MAY_CREATE_DIR : MAY_CREATE_FILE;
    > > >
    > > > I'm having trouble understanding this next bit:
    > > >
    > > > > + is_sticky = check_sticky(dir, inode);
    > > > > + error = inode_permission(dir, mask);
    > > > > + if ((error || is_sticky) && IS_RICHACL(inode) &&
    > > > > + !inode_permission(dir, mask & ~(MAY_WRITE | MAY_DELETE_CHILD)) &&
    > > > > + !inode_permission(inode, MAY_DELETE_SELF))
    > > > > + error = 0;
    > > >
    > > > OK, so we can ignore the lack of write or delete permissions on the
    > > > parent if we have delete_self permissions on the child. I guess that's
    > > > right.
    > > >
    > > > Why the "|| is_sticky" above?
    > > >
    > > > Is there some less complicated why to write this?
    > >
    > > we removed the ns_capable check out of check_sticky, because we don't
    > > want to do capability check when richacl allows access. We also want to
    > > make sure that even if mode bits allow access (inode_permission(dir, mask))
    > > if sticky bit is set we do additional check.
    >
    > Why are the two inode_permissions ANDed? The windows semantics are that
    > you can delete if you have MAY_DELETE_CHILD *or* MAY_DELETE_SELF.

    Either way, those conditions are just really hard to follow. Could you
    simplify the logic, add comments, maybe move the richacl stuff into a
    little helper function?

    Also, a nit:

    > > > > + !inode_permission(dir, mask & ~(MAY_WRITE | MAY_DELETE_CHILD)) &&

    The way you calculated mask above it always includes MAY_WRITE and
    MAY_DELETE_CHILD, so the above is equivalent to just

    !inode_permission(dir, MAY_WRITE | MAY_DELETE_CHILD) &&

    isn't it?

    --b.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-09-09 01:25    [W:0.022 / U:0.156 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site