On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 at 09:56, Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> + /*
> + * This permission hook is different than fsnotify_open_perm() hook.
> + * This is a pre-content hook that is called without sb_writers held
> + * and after the file was truncated.
> + */
> + return fsnotify_file_area_perm(file, MAY_OPEN, &file->f_pos, 0);
> }
I still object to this all.
You can't say "permission denied" after you've already truncated the
file. It's not a sane model. I complained about that earlier, it seems
that complaint was missed in the other complaints.
Also, this whole "This permission hook is different than
fsnotify_open_perm() hook" statement is purely because
fsnotify_open_perm() itself was broken and called from the wrong place
as mentioned in the other email.
Fix *THAT* first, then unify the two places that should *not* be
different into one single "this is the fsnotify_open" code. And that
place explicitly sets that FMODE_NOTIFY_PERM bit, and makes sure that
it does *not* set it for FMODE_NONOTIFY or FMODE_PATH cases.
And then please work on making sure that that isn't called unless
actually required.
The actual real "pre-content permission events" should then ONLY test
the FMODE_NOTIFY_PERM bit. Nothing else. None of this "re-use the
existing fsnotify_file() logic" stuff. Noe extra tests, no extra
logic.
Don't make me jump through filve layers of inline functions that all
test different 'mask' bits, just to verify that the open / read /
write paths don't do something stupid.
IOW, make it straightforward and obvious what you are doing, and make
it very clear that you're not pointlessly testing things like
FMODE_NONOTIFY when the *ONLY* thing that should be tested is whether
FMODE_NOTIFY_PERM is set.
Please.
Linus
