On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 10:11:28AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 08:16:04AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > xfs_setattr_nonsize calls posix_acl_chmod which returns EOPNOTSUPP > > because the xfs symlink inode_operations do not include a ->set_acl > > pointer. > > > > I /think/ that posix_acl_chmod code exists to enforce that the file mode > > reflects any acl that might be set on the inode, but in this case the > > inode is a symbolic link. > > > > I don't remember off the top of my head if ACLs are supposed to apply to > > symlinks, but what do you think about adding get_acl/set_acl pointers to > > xfs_symlink_inode_operations and xfs_inline_symlink_inode_operations ? > > Symlinks don't have permissions or ACLs, so adding them makes no > sense. Ahh, I thought so! > xfs doesn't seem all that different from the other file systems, > so I suspect you'll also see it with other on-disk file systems. Yeah, I noticed that btrfs seems to exhibit the same behavior. I also noticed that ext4 actually /does/ implement [gs]et_acl for symlinks. > We probably need a check high up in the chmod and co code to reject > the operation early for O_PATH file descriptors pointing to symlinks. <nod> --D
