| Date | Tue, 29 Apr 2014 10:20:13 +1000 | From | Dave Chinner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH -V1 09/22] vfs: Make acl_permission_check() work for richacls |
| |
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 09:44:40PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > From: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@kernel.org> > > Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@kernel.org> > Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > --- > fs/namei.c | 13 +++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/fs/namei.c b/fs/namei.c > index 26b9a8212837..06474553c08d 100644 > --- a/fs/namei.c > +++ b/fs/namei.c > @@ -284,6 +284,19 @@ static int acl_permission_check(struct inode *inode, int mask) > { > unsigned int mode = inode->i_mode; > > + if (IS_RICHACL(inode)) { > + int error = check_acl(inode, mask); > + if (error != -EAGAIN) > + return error; > + if (mask & (MAY_DELETE_SELF | MAY_TAKE_OWNERSHIP | > + MAY_CHMOD | MAY_SET_TIMES)) { > + /* > + * The file permission bit cannot grant these > + * permissions. > + */ > + return -EACCES; > + } > + } > if (likely(uid_eq(current_fsuid(), inode->i_uid))) > mode >>= 6; > else {
why does this take priority over a simple uid match? Some comments explaining this for people unfamiliar with richacls would be nice. Not to mention the commit message should also explain the change...
Cheers,
Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com
|