Return-Path: Received: from mail-la0-f45.google.com ([209.85.215.45]:34785 "EHLO mail-la0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752552AbbH1WGY (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Aug 2015 18:06:24 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150828214917.GC23326@fieldses.org> References: <1438689218-6921-1-git-send-email-agruenba@redhat.com> <1438689218-6921-11-git-send-email-agruenba@redhat.com> <20150828214917.GC23326@fieldses.org> Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 00:06:22 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC v6 10/40] richacl: Permission check algorithm From: =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_Gr=C3=BCnbacher?= To: "J. Bruce Fields" Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux FS-devel Mailing List , Linux NFS Mailing List , Linux API Mailing List , linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, LSM List , Andreas Gruenbacher Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 2015-08-28 23:49 GMT+02:00 J. Bruce Fields : > On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 01:53:08PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: >> + /* >> + * We don't care which class the process is in when the acl is >> + * not masked. >> + */ >> + in_owner_or_group_class = 1; > > So why bother setting it at all, then? Oh, I see, it lets you break out > of the loop below earlier. OK. Comment changed to: /* * When the acl is not masked, there is no need to determine if * the process is in the group class and we can earlier break * out of the loop below. */ > Patch makes sense to me, ACK. Thanks, Andreas