On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:11:45 -0500, "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Aneesh, > > What is the current status of this patch series? I seem to remember > that Christoph and Al Viro had some objections; have those been > cleared yet? If not, can you summarize what their objections are? The main objection raised was the use of may_delete and may_create inode operations callback. They are gone now and we have MAY_* flags as favoured by Al Viro. The new MAY_* flags added are #define MAY_CREATE_FILE 128 #define MAY_CREATE_DIR 256 #define MAY_DELETE_CHILD 512 #define MAY_DELETE_SELF 1024 #define MAY_TAKE_OWNERSHIP 2048 #define MAY_CHMOD 4096 #define MAY_SET_TIMES 8192 > > To be honest I haven't been paying super close attention to this patch > series, and I'm curious what needs to happen with it one way or > another. > IMHO we are ready to get first 11 patches upstream in the next merge window. ie the below set of patches. vfs: Make acl_permission_check() work for richacls vfs: Add permission flags for setting file attributes vfs: Make the inode passed to inode_change_ok non-const vfs: Add delete child and delete self permission flags vfs: Add new file and directory create permission flags vfs: Optimize out IS_RICHACL() if CONFIG_FS_RICHACL is not defined vfs: Add IS_RICHACL() test for richacl support vfs: Add generic IS_ACL() test for acl support vfs: Add a comment to inode_permission() vfs: Pass all mask flags down to iop->check_acl vfs: Indicate that the permission functions take all the MAY_* flags -aneesh -- 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
