From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932360Ab0IXPvJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Sep 2010 11:51:09 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:23108 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932172Ab0IXPvI (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Sep 2010 11:51:08 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 11:50:49 -0400 From: Jeff Layton To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" Cc: sfrench@us.ibm.com, ffilz@us.ibm.com, agruen@suse.de, adilger@sun.com, sandeen@redhat.com, tytso@mit.edu, bfields@citi.umich.edu, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, nfsv4@linux-nfs.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH -V4 07/11] vfs: Make acl_permission_check() work for richacls Message-ID: <20100924115049.47b1217b@tlielax.poochiereds.net> In-Reply-To: <1285332494-12756-8-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1285332494-12756-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1285332494-12756-8-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 18:18:10 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V" wrote: > From: Andreas Gruenbacher > > Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher > Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V > --- > fs/namei.c | 6 ++++++ > 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/namei.c b/fs/namei.c > index 855b360..b0b8a71 100644 > --- a/fs/namei.c > +++ b/fs/namei.c > @@ -174,6 +174,12 @@ static int acl_permission_check(struct inode *inode, int mask, > { > umode_t mode = inode->i_mode; > > + if (IS_RICHACL(inode)) { > + int error = check_acl(inode, mask); > + if (error != -EAGAIN) > + return error; > + } > + > if (current_fsuid() == inode->i_uid) > mode >>= 6; > else { This may just be my own ignorance of ACL semantics and unfamiliarity with the ACL code in general. It seems a bit unusual though... Just to be clear...this patch implies that with richacls you can deny or grant access to the owner of the file even if the mode bits say otherwise. With POSIX acls, this seems to be the other way around. Hmm....guess I should read the spec... -- Jeff Layton