| Message ID | 1398615293-22931-10-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 09:44:40PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > From: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@kernel.org> > > Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@kernel.org> > Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > --- > 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... Cheers, Dave.
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> writes: > On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 09:44:40PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >> From: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@kernel.org> >> >> Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@kernel.org> >> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> --- >> 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
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 {