From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1947094Ab2LFTog (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Dec 2012 14:44:36 -0500 Received: from lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk ([81.2.110.251]:55415 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1947077Ab2LFTod (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Dec 2012 14:44:33 -0500 Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 19:49:49 +0000 From: Alan Cox To: Pavel Shilovsky Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, wine-devel@winehq.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add O_DENY* flags to fcntl and cifs Message-ID: <20121206194949.7ab20d56@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <1354818391-7968-1-git-send-email-piastry@etersoft.ru> References: <1354818391-7968-1-git-send-email-piastry@etersoft.ru> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.1 (GTK+ 2.24.8; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Face: 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 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 Thu, 6 Dec 2012 22:26:28 +0400 Pavel Shilovsky wrote: > Network filesystems CIFS, SMB2.0, SMB3.0 and NFSv4 have such flags - this change can benefit cifs and nfs modules. While this change is ok for network filesystems, itsn't not targeted for local filesystems due security problems (e.g. when a user process can deny root to delete a file). If I have my root fs on NFS then the same applies does it not. Your patches fail to describe the security semantics and what file rights I must have to apply each option. How do I track down a lock user, what tools are provided ? How do the new options interact with the security layer? I don't have a problem with the idea, but it needs a lot more clear description of how it works so the model can be checked and if need be things tweaked (eg needing write to denywrite etc) Alan