Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932133AbWCANLv (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Mar 2006 08:11:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932206AbWCANLu (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Mar 2006 08:11:50 -0500 Received: from MAIL.13thfloor.at ([212.16.62.50]:9155 "EHLO mail.13thfloor.at") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932133AbWCANLu (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Mar 2006 08:11:50 -0500 Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 14:11:49 +0100 From: Herbert Poetzl To: Trond Myklebust Cc: Andrew Morton , Christoph Hellwig , Al Viro , Linux Kernel ML Subject: Re: [RFC] vfs: cleanup of permission() Message-ID: <20060301131149.GD26837@MAIL.13thfloor.at> Mail-Followup-To: Trond Myklebust , Andrew Morton , Christoph Hellwig , Al Viro , Linux Kernel ML References: <20060228052606.GA6494@MAIL.13thfloor.at> <1141202744.11585.20.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1141202744.11585.20.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2241 Lines: 60 On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 12:45:44AM -0800, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 06:26 +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote: > > Hi Andrew! Christoph! Al! > > > > after thinking some time about the oracle words > > (sent in reply to previous BME submissions) we > > (Sam and I) came to the conclusion that it would > > be a good idea to remove the nameidata introduced > > in September 2003 from the inode permission() > > checks, so that vfs_permission() can take care > > of them ... > > Why? There may be perfectly legitimate reasons for the filesystem to > request information about the path. I can think of server failover > situations in NFSv4 where the client may need to look up the > filehandle for the file on the new server before it can service the > ACCESS call. the second part is actually a hack to help nfs and fuse to get the 'required' information until there is a proper interface (at the vfs not inode level) to pass relevant information (probably dentry/vfsmount/flags) > > this is in two parts, the first one does the > > removal and the second one fixes up nfs and fuse > > by passing the relevant nd_flags via the mask > > > > Note: this is just a suggestion, so please let > > us know what you think > > Firstly, the fact that the lookup intent flags happen not to collide > with MAY_* is a complete fluke, not a design. The numerical values of > either set of flags could change tomorrow for all you know. > > Secondly, an intent is _not_ a permissions mask by any stretch of the > imagination. see above > IOW: at the very least make that intent flag a separate parameter. IMHO it would be good to remove them completely form the current permission() checks. best, Herbert > 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/ - 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/