Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from e28smtp05.in.ibm.com ([122.248.162.5]:43691 "EHLO e28smtp05.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751016AbaEAPjd (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 May 2014 11:39:33 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e28smtp05.in.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 1 May 2014 21:09:31 +0530 From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" To: Dave Chinner 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 09/22] vfs: Make acl_permission_check() work for richacls In-Reply-To: <20140429002013.GR15995@dastard> References: <1398615293-22931-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1398615293-22931-10-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140429002013.GR15995@dastard> Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 21:09:23 +0530 Message-ID: <87fvktbj9w.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Dave Chinner writes: > On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 09:44:40PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >> From: Andreas Gruenbacher >> >> Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher >> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V >> --- >> fs/namei.c | 13 +++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/fs/namei.c b/fs/namei.c >> index 26b9a8212837..06474553c08d 100644 >> --- a/fs/namei.c >> +++ b/fs/namei.c >> @@ -284,6 +284,19 @@ static int acl_permission_check(struct inode *inode, int mask) >> { >> unsigned int mode = inode->i_mode; >> >> + if (IS_RICHACL(inode)) { >> + int error = check_acl(inode, mask); >> + if (error != -EAGAIN) >> + return error; >> + if (mask & (MAY_DELETE_SELF | MAY_TAKE_OWNERSHIP | >> + MAY_CHMOD | MAY_SET_TIMES)) { >> + /* >> + * The file permission bit cannot grant these >> + * permissions. >> + */ >> + return -EACCES; >> + } >> + } >> if (likely(uid_eq(current_fsuid(), inode->i_uid))) >> mode >>= 6; >> else { > > why does this take priority over a simple uid match? Some comments > explaining this for people unfamiliar with richacls would be nice. > Not to mention the commit message should also explain the change... > Richacl can have further limitation on file owner. Will add more comments around the function. -aneesh