On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 18:18:10 +0530
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@xxxxxxx>
>
> Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/namei.c | 6 ++++++
> 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/namei.c b/fs/namei.c
> index 855b360..b0b8a71 100644
> --- a/fs/namei.c
> +++ b/fs/namei.c
> @@ -174,6 +174,12 @@ static int acl_permission_check(struct inode *inode, int mask,
> {
> umode_t mode = inode->i_mode;
>
> + if (IS_RICHACL(inode)) {
> + int error = check_acl(inode, mask);
> + if (error != -EAGAIN)
> + return error;
> + }
> +
> if (current_fsuid() == inode->i_uid)
> mode >>= 6;
> else {
This may just be my own ignorance of ACL semantics and unfamiliarity
with the ACL code in general. It seems a bit unusual though...
Just to be clear...this patch implies that with richacls you can deny
or grant access to the owner of the file even if the mode bits say
otherwise. With POSIX acls, this seems to be the other way around.
Hmm....guess I should read the spec...
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
