On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 3:11 PM Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Thanks for the updated changelog! But as I'm looking into VFS code isn't > this already handled by mode_strip_umask() / vfs_prepare_mode() in > fs/namei.c? Because posix_acl_create() doesn't do anything to 'mode' for > !IS_POSIXACL() filesystems either. So at least ext2 (where I've checked > the mount option handling) does seem to have umask properly applied in all > the cases. But I might be missing something... I'm not sure either. I was hoping the VFS experts could tell something about how this API is supposed to be used and whose responsibility it is to apply the umask. There used to be some confusion in the code, to the point it was missing completely for O_TMPFILE. I'm still somewhat confused. Maybe this is a chance to clear this confusion up and then document it? I wish there was one central place to apply the umask, and not spread it around two (or more?) different code locations, depending on whether there's an ACL. For my taste, that sort of policy is too error prone for something as sensitive as umasks. After we already had the O_TMPFILE vulnerability (which was only fixed last year, three years(!) after I reported it).
