Hi,
On Thu, 22 May 2008, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > 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;
That check didn't used to be there and that the HFS+ check is older than
that might have given you the idea that it at least used to work.
So now the only way for a fs to differentiate between lookup and exec is
gone... :-(
bye, Roman
--
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
