On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 04:53:27PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > > RTFS. permission() doesn't do "is that vfsmount read-only" checks, exactly > > > > because it's 100% bogus - either you cover it with entire area where we > > > > are guaranteed to stay r/w, or it's by definition racy. > > > > > > I know that. > > > > > > That does not mean, that fh_verify() needs to do vfsmount r/o checks. > > > AFAICS it's perfectly OK to do that later, around the vfs_ call. > > > > ... and around everything else that happens to be done after fh_verify > > for write access, surely? > > What in particular? You have managed to avoid answering this question > for the last...I don't know how many emails. Oh, for fuck sake... grep and ye shall see. Right next to setattr we have nfsd4_set_nfs4_acl(), with pair of set_nfsv4_acl_one(). I'd rather have those two covered by a single will/wont range, TYVM. nfsd_create() will happily do vfs_mkdir() and nfsd_create_setattr(). Ditto. And while we are at it, losing the check for r/o in fh_verify() will sure as hell require at least handling it separately on the normal write path. > > Note that e.g. nfsd_setattr() does _not_ call > > vfs_<anything>()... > > Yes it does: notify_change(). It's vfs_setattr() under a pseudonym. Are you going to move the will/wont in there? Because there's a bunch of stuff in fs/open.c that will disagree... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
