2015-09-18 19:58 GMT+02:00 J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Sat, Sep 05, 2015 at 12:27:09PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
>> + if (dir_ace->e_flags & RICHACE_NO_PROPAGATE_INHERIT_ACE)
>> + ace->e_flags &= ~RICHACE_INHERITANCE_FLAGS;
>> + else if ((dir_ace->e_flags & RICHACE_FILE_INHERIT_ACE) &&
>> + !(dir_ace->e_flags & RICHACE_DIRECTORY_INHERIT_ACE))
>
> The FILE_INHERIT_ACE check there is redundant since we already know
> dir_ace is inheritable.
>
> (So, OK, it isn't wrong to check it again but let's not make this
> condition any more complicated than necessary.)
Indeed, we can turn it into:
if (dir_ace->e_flags & RICHACE_NO_PROPAGATE_INHERIT_ACE)
ace->e_flags &= ~RICHACE_INHERITANCE_FLAGS;
else if (!(dir_ace->e_flags & RICHACE_DIRECTORY_INHERIT_ACE))
ace->e_flags |= RICHACE_INHERIT_ONLY_ACE;
>> +static struct richacl *
>> +richacl_inherit_inode(const struct richacl *dir_acl, struct inode *inode)
>> +{
>> + struct richacl *acl;
>> + mode_t mask;
>> +
>> + acl = richacl_inherit(dir_acl, S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode));
>> + if (acl) {
>> + mask = inode->i_mode;
>> + if (richacl_equiv_mode(acl, &mask) == 0) {
>> + richacl_put(acl);
>> + acl = NULL;
>
> Why is it correct to ignore entirely the inherited acl in this case?
>
> Oh, I see, I'm forgetting that richacl_equiv_mode is setting the mask,
> which will get applied at the end of this function. In my defense,
> maybe it's easy to overlook a side effect in an if condition.... But I
> don't have a better idea. OK.
Yes. I'll leave that as it is.
> So, nits aside:
>
> Reviewed-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks,
Andreas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
