Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.32 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.32;
Date:   Wed, 11 Oct 2023 19:26:06 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc:     Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Max Kellermann <max.kellermann@ionos.com>,
        Xiubo Li <xiubli@redhat.com>,
        Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>,
        Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@kernel.org>, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        jfs-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net,
        Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fs/{posix_acl,ext2,jfs,ceph}: apply umask if ACL
 support is disabled
Message-ID: <20231011172606.mztqyvclq6hq2qa2@quack3>
References: <20231010131125.3uyfkqbcetfcqsve@quack3>
 <CAKPOu+-nC2bQTZYL0XTzJL6Tx4Pi1gLfNWCjU2Qz1f_5CbJc1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20231011100541.sfn3prgtmp7hk2oj@quack3>
 <CAKPOu+_xdFALt9sgdd5w66Ab6KTqiy8+Z0Yd3Ss4+92jh8nCwg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20231011120655.ndb7bfasptjym3wl@quack3>
 <CAKPOu+-hLrrpZShHh0o6uc_KMW91suEd0_V_uzp5vMf4NM-8yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKPOu+_0yjg=PrwAR8jKok8WskjdDEJOBtu3uKR_4Qtp8b7H1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20231011135922.4bij3ittlg4ujkd7@quack3>
 <20231011-braumeister-anrufen-62127dc64de0@brauner>
 <20231011170042.GA267994@mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231011170042.GA267994@mit.edu>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed 11-10-23 13:00:42, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 05:27:37PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > Aside from that, the problem had been that filesystems like nfs v4
> > intentionally raised SB_POSIXACL to prevent umask stripping in the VFS.
> > IOW, for them SB_POSIXACL was equivalent to "don't apply any umask".
> > 
> > And afaict nfs v4 has it's own thing going on how and where umasks are
> > applied. However, since we now have the following commit in vfs.misc:
> > 
> >     fs: add a new SB_I_NOUMASK flag
> 
> To summarize, just to make sure I understand where we're going.  Since
> normally (excepting unusual cases like NFS), it's fine to strip the
> umask bits twice (once in the VFS, and once in the file system, for
> those file systems that are doing it), once we have SB_I_NOUMASK and
> NFS starts using it, then the VFS can just unconditionally strip the
> umask bits, and then we can gradually clean up the file system umask
> handling (which would then be harmlessly duplicative).
> 
> Did I get this right?

I don't think this is accurate. posix_acl_create() needs unmasked 'mode'
because instead of using current_umask() for masking it wants to use
whatever is stored in the ACLs as an umask.

So I still think we need to keep umask handling in both posix_acl_create()
and vfs_prepare_mode(). But filesystem's only obligation would be to call
posix_acl_create() if the inode is IS_POSIXACL. No more caring about when
to apply umask and when not based on config or mount options.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR