Re: [patch 06/14] hfsplus: remove hfsplus_permission()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> > > 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... :-(
> > 
> > That check was added quite some time ago:
> > 
> >    commit a343bb7750e6a098909c34f5c5dfddbc4fa40053
> >    Author: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >    Date:   Tue Aug 22 20:06:03 2006 -0400
> >    
> >        VFS: Fix access("file", X_OK) in the presence of ACLs
> > 
> > Also it sounds just plain wrong to allow execution without an x bit.
> > It could cause nasty surprises at least.  What was the intended
> > purpose of that code, and why did nobody notice when it stopped
> > working?
> 
> As I said to allow lookup on files.

That requires a quite bit more support from the VFS than just allowing
lookup to work on regular files without x bits.  You'll have big
trouble with hard links for example: the VFS doesn't like non-leaf
dentries to be aliased.

Besides hfsplus_permission() did not differentiate between execve on
the file and lookup on that file, allowing both.  Which is obviously
wrong.

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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux