lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Apr]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [WTF] ->setattr() locking changes


On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Alexander Viro wrote:

> Looking at that stuff, I'd suggest to
> a) kill that branch in hpfs_unlink().
> b) remove fh_lock()/fh_unlock() in nfsd/vfs.c::nfsd_setattr() (Trond?)
> c) add ATTR_SXID that would do s[ug]id removal - under ->i_sem and switch
> the callers to it.
>
> Comments? If you don't see any problems with this variant I'll do it.

OTOH, we might be better off taking ->i_sem in all callers of notify_change().
There's only 10 of them, so it's not too much work and that would have a
benefit of allowing to do things like suid removal on write(2) in a right way.

Hmm... While we are at it, why don't we remove suid/sgid on truncate(2)?

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:22    [W:0.047 / U:2.692 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site