Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Subject | [PATCH] nfs/super: check NFS_CAP_ACLS instead of the NFS version | From | Max Kellermann <> | Date | Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:15:21 +0100 |
| |
This sets MS_POSIXACL only if ACL support is really enabled, instead of always setting MS_POSIXACL if the NFS protocol version theoretically supports ACL.
The code comment says "We will [apply the umask] ourselves", but that happens in posix_acl_create() only if the kernel has POSIX ACL support. Without it, posix_acl_create() is an empty dummy function.
So let's not pretend we will apply the umask if we can already know that we will never.
This fixes a problem where the umask is always ignored in the NFS client when compiled without CONFIG_FS_POSIX_ACL. This is a 4 year old regression caused by commit 013cdf1088d723 which itself was not completely wrong, but failed to consider all the side effects by misdesigned VFS code.
Signed-off-by: Max Kellermann <mk@cm4all.com> --- fs/nfs/super.c | 7 +++++-- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/nfs/super.c b/fs/nfs/super.c index 29bacdc56f6a..fa9929723bfe 100644 --- a/fs/nfs/super.c +++ b/fs/nfs/super.c @@ -2345,11 +2345,14 @@ void nfs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, struct nfs_mount_info *mount_info) if (data && data->bsize) sb->s_blocksize = nfs_block_size(data->bsize, &sb->s_blocksize_bits); - if (server->nfs_client->rpc_ops->version != 2) { + if (NFS_SB(sb)->caps & NFS_CAP_ACLS) { /* The VFS shouldn't apply the umask to mode bits. We will do * so ourselves when necessary. */ sb->s_flags |= SB_POSIXACL; + } + + if (server->nfs_client->rpc_ops->version != 2) { sb->s_time_gran = 1; sb->s_export_op = &nfs_export_ops; } @@ -2375,7 +2378,7 @@ static void nfs_clone_super(struct super_block *sb, sb->s_time_gran = 1; sb->s_export_op = old_sb->s_export_op; - if (server->nfs_client->rpc_ops->version != 2) { + if (NFS_SB(sb)->caps & NFS_CAP_ACLS) { /* The VFS shouldn't apply the umask to mode bits. We will do * so ourselves when necessary. */
| |