> > From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > I'm not sure what this function is trying to achieve, but it's not
> > succeeding: the condition for which it is returning zero is exactly
> > the same as checked by permission(), which results in -EACCES.
> >
> > So in the end this is equivalent to the default action.
>
> No, it's not, it allows for HFS+ specific special case to allow the lookup
> of the resource fork.
Sorry I just don't see how that code would allow anything. The only
place hfsplus_permission() is called is from permission() in namei.c,
and in that case it _is_ equivalent. Look:
hfsplus_permission():
if (S_ISREG(inode->i_mode) && mask & MAY_EXEC && !(inode->i_mode & 0111))
return 0;
permission():
retval = inode->i_op->permission(inode, submask, nd);
if (!retval) {
/*
* Exec permission on a regular file is denied if none
* of the execute bits are set.
*
* This check should be done by the ->permission()
* method.
*/
if ((mask & MAY_EXEC) && S_ISREG(inode->i_mode) &&
!(inode->i_mode & S_IXUGO))
return -EACCES;
Miklos
--
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
