On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 08:43:11PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > Note that by using the helper, the order of calling file_remove_privs() > after file_update_mtime() in xfs_file_aio_write_checks() has changed. > > Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > fs/xfs/xfs_file.c | 15 +-------------- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 14 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c > index 76748255f843..916a35cae5e9 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c > @@ -367,20 +367,7 @@ xfs_file_aio_write_checks( > * lock above. Eventually we should look into a way to avoid > * the pointless lock roundtrip. > */ > - if (likely(!(file->f_mode & FMODE_NOCMTIME))) { ...especially since here we think NOCMTIME is likely /not/ to be set. > - error = file_update_time(file); > - if (error) > - return error; > - } > - > - /* > - * If we're writing the file then make sure to clear the setuid and > - * setgid bits if the process is not being run by root. This keeps > - * people from modifying setuid and setgid binaries. > - */ > - if (!IS_NOSEC(inode)) > - return file_remove_privs(file); Hm, file_modified doesn't have the !IS_NOSEC check guarding file_remove_privs, are you sure it's ok to remove the suid bits unconditionally? Even if SB_NOSEC (and therefore S_NOSEC) are set? --D > - return 0; > + return file_modified(file); > } > > static int > -- > 2.17.1 >