Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: inode_change_ok | From | Trond Myklebust <> | Date | Mon, 28 Nov 2005 12:15:13 -0500 |
| |
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 12:06 -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 11:48 -0600, Steve French wrote: > > Why are there no calls to inode_change_ok in nfs (on the client), but > > there are in most other filesytsems? Seems like there are some cases > > in nfs in which a local permission check is done via a call to > > nfs_permission which calls generic_permission ... if that is the case > > why not do a call to inode_change_ok in similar cases? > > Under the NFS model, the server manages the permissions, not the client. > > The purpose of inode_change_ok() is to perform a load of local checks > which are simply alien to that model: > > a) your capabilities don't mean anything to the server. Its decision to > grant the ability to change owner of a file is based on your > credentials, not your capabilities. > > b) Even the uid/gid checks don't take into account the fact that the > server may be mapping you into different users/groups (c.f. root > squashing etc.). > > All, in all, a call to inode_change_ok() would at best be redundant, and > at worst, be plain incorrect.
BTW: The call to permission() is thoroughly redundant too, and really wants to be optimised away. Permissions checking is done by the server on the actual SETATTR RPC call...
Cheers, Trond
- 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/
| |