Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 10:24:57 +1000
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: agruen@kernel.org, bfields@fieldses.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, dhowells@redhat.com,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -V1 10/22] richacl: In-memory representation and helper
 functions
Message-ID: <20140429002457.GS15995@dastard>
References: <1398615293-22931-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1398615293-22931-11-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1398615293-22931-11-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 09:44:41PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> From: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@kernel.org>
> 
> A richacl consists of an NFSv4 acl and an owner, group, and other mask.
> These three masks correspond to the owner, group, and other file
> permission bits, but they contain NFSv4 permissions instead of POSIX
> permissions.
> 
> Each entry in the NFSv4 acl applies to the file owner (OWNER@), the
> owning group (GROUP@), literally everyone (EVERYONE@), or to a specific
> uid or gid.
> 
> As in the standard POSIX file permission model, each process is the
> owner, group, or other file class.  A richacl grants a requested access
> only if the NFSv4 acl in the richacl grants the access (according to the
> NFSv4 permission check algorithm), and the file mask that applies to the
> process includes the requested permissions.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
....
> +
> +/**
> + * richace_is_same_identifier  -  are both identifiers the same?
> + */
> +int
> +richace_is_same_identifier(const struct richace *a, const struct richace *b)
> +{
> +#define WHO_FLAGS (ACE4_SPECIAL_WHO | ACE4_IDENTIFIER_GROUP)
> +	if ((a->e_flags & WHO_FLAGS) != (b->e_flags & WHO_FLAGS))
> +		return 0;
> +	return a->e_id == b->e_id;
> +#undef WHO_FLAGS

Ugh.

....

> +#define richacl_for_each_entry(_ace, _acl) \
> +	for (_ace = _acl->a_entries; \
> +	     _ace != _acl->a_entries + _acl->a_count; \
> +	     _ace++)
> +
> +#define richacl_for_each_entry_reverse(_ace, _acl) \
> +	for (_ace = _acl->a_entries + _acl->a_count - 1; \
> +	     _ace != _acl->a_entries - 1; \
> +	     _ace--)

somewhat lacking in ()...

> +/* Flag values defined by rich-acl */
> +#define ACL4_MASKED			0x80
> +
> +#define ACL4_VALID_FLAGS (			\
> +		ACL4_MASKED)
> +
> +/* e_type values */
> +#define ACE4_ACCESS_ALLOWED_ACE_TYPE	0x0000
> +#define ACE4_ACCESS_DENIED_ACE_TYPE	0x0001
> +/*#define ACE4_SYSTEM_AUDIT_ACE_TYPE	0x0002*/
> +/*#define ACE4_SYSTEM_ALARM_ACE_TYPE	0x0003*/

What's with all the commented out types?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
--
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/