Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752859AbaBCWbh (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 3 Feb 2014 17:31:37 -0500
Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:42742 "EHLO
	ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751114AbaBCWbf (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 3 Feb 2014 17:31:35 -0500
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:31:27 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Ilya Dryomov <ilya.dryomov@inktank.com>, Sage Weil <sage@inktank.com>,
        Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Guangliang Zhao <lucienchao@gmail.com>,
        Li Wang <li.wang@ubuntykylin.com>, zheng.z.yan@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ceph: fix posix ACL hooks
Message-ID: <20140203223127.GE10323@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <1391013467-7598-1-git-send-email-ilya.dryomov@inktank.com>
 <CA+55aFwTuBDHgQoTymr8OtE-+k=+pX0T_eb+fff0K+Pa3C-g-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140130075421.GA10050@infradead.org>
 <CA+55aFxbVFpy8Y8P5fMCmmTSGbFxU9dTbOj9uTH+fKWGUzwgNg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140203102943.GF11829@infradead.org>
 <CA+55aFytvTPdBsv6BwSomUGWXZ_tKP=BxaeJ7FXBft0JNnjBCQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140203211955.GY10323@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CA+55aFyfPVgGXn_hSBnnVyzWn4AbZQ40MPk_AoKB_6uC6LJqPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140203213926.GA10323@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CA+55aFyKN47V56oksujoojdV_uhoFYJxURg3RNHXbLFSqqDnGA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFyKN47V56oksujoojdV_uhoFYJxURg3RNHXbLFSqqDnGA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 01:44:22PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > If we really have hardlinks, the result of permission check would better
> > be a function of inode itself - as in, "if it gives different results
> > for two pathnames reachable for the same user, we have a bug".
		      ^^^^^^^^^
> No. You're wrong.
> 
> EVEN ON A UNIX FILESYSTEM THE PATH IS MEANINGFUL.
> 
> Do this: create a hardlink in two different directories. Make the
> *directory* permissions for one of the directories be something you
> cannot traverse. Now try to check the permissions of the *same* inode
> through those two paths. Notice how you get *different* results.
> 
> Really.

Yes.  In one case we won't get to looking at the permissions of that thing
at all.
 
> Now, imagine that you are doing the same thing over a network. On the
> server, there may be a single inode for the file, but when the client
> gives the server a pathname, the two pathnames to that single inode
> ARE NOT EQUIVALENT.

Why do we pretend that those are links, in the first place?

> And the fact is, filesystems with hardlinks and path-name-based
> operations do exist. cifs with the unix extensions is one of them.

Pox on Tridge...

I really, really hate that change; I can buy "->getxattr() has inconvenient
interface because of lousy protocol design", but spreading the same to
->permission(), with everything that will fall out of that... <shudder>
--
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/