On Friday 24 September 2010 17:54:23 Jeff Layton wrote: > On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 18:18:11 +0530 > "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > @@ -2415,7 +2418,7 @@ int vfs_link(struct dentry *old_dentry, struct inode *dir, struct dentry *new_de > > if (!inode) > > return -ENOENT; > > > > - error = may_create(dir, new_dentry); > > + error = may_create(dir, new_dentry, S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode)); > > ^^^^ this is a little > scary, but even if it's > a directory, it'll get > kicked out in a later > check. Would it be > clearer to move up the > S_ISDIR() check in this > function and then pass > this in as false? Ah, you mean this: --- a/fs/namei.c +++ b/fs/namei.c @@ -2450,7 +2450,9 @@ int vfs_link(struct dentry *old_dentry, struct inode *dir, struct dentry *new_de if (!inode) return -ENOENT; - error = may_create(dir, new_dentry, S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode)); + if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode)) + return -EPERM; + error = may_create(dir, new_dentry, 0); if (error) return error; @@ -2464,8 +2466,6 @@ int vfs_link(struct dentry *old_dentry, struct inode *dir, struct dentry *new_de return -EPERM; if (!dir->i_op->link) return -EPERM; - if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode)) - return -EPERM; error = security_inode_link(old_dentry, dir, new_dentry); if (error) This is a clear improvement; I don't think it matters that user-space will get -EPERM instead of -EXDEV when trying to hard-link a directory across devices. Thanks, Andreas -- 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
