On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:29:40PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > 2015-09-23 21:18 GMT+02:00 J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 03:11:08PM -0400, bfields wrote: > >> user aces like owner aces what you intended to do, > >> and if so, why? > > > > That does look wrong to me; in an example like: > > > > file owner bfields > > mask 0700, not WRITE_THROUGH > > bfields:rwx::allow > > > > The permission algorithm grants nothing to anyone, but it looks to me > > like richacl_apply_masks just leaves this as > > > > bfields:rwx::allow > > > > but it would give the right result (an empty/deny-all ACL) if it weren't > > for this odd case here. > > In POSIX ACLs, only the entry that best matches the process determines > the access permissions. For the file owner, this would always be the > "user::" entry, and such an entry always exists. > > In richacls, permissions from multiple entries do accumulate; the > permission check algorithm does not pick a "best match". When bfields > owns a file and a "bfields:rwx::allow" entry exists, denying rwx > access to bfields would be very surprising. The same could be said if there's a group-i-belong-to:rwx::allow entry, do we make that exception too? --b. > It makes more sense to put > user entries that match the current owner into the owner class, and > apply the owner mask instead of the group mask. This was working in an > earlier version but apparently broke at some point. > > So the result that richacl_apply_masks computes here is correct, and > the permission check algorithm needs a little fix. > > Thanks, > Andreas > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- 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
