On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 16:39:16 -0400, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 10:55:31PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> > From: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Normally, deleting a file requires write access to the parent directory.
> > Some permission models use a different permission on the parent
> > directory to indicate delete access. In addition, a process can have
> > per-file delete access even without delete access on the parent
> > directory.
> >
> > Introduce two new inode_permission() mask flags and use them in
> > may_delete()
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/namei.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> > include/linux/fs.h | 2 ++
> > 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/namei.c b/fs/namei.c
> > index d52a4cd..eacb530 100644
> > --- a/fs/namei.c
> > +++ b/fs/namei.c
> > @@ -337,7 +337,7 @@ static inline int do_inode_permission(struct inode *inode, int mask)
> > * are used for other things.
> > *
> > * When checking for MAY_APPEND, MAY_CREATE_FILE, MAY_CREATE_DIR,
> > - * MAY_WRITE must also be set in @mask.
> > + * MAY_DELETE_CHILD, MAY_DELETE_SELF, MAY_WRITE must also be set in @mask.
> > */
> > int inode_permission(struct inode *inode, int mask)
> > {
> > @@ -1862,7 +1862,7 @@ static inline int check_sticky(struct inode *dir, struct inode *inode)
> > return 0;
> >
> > other_userns:
> > - return !ns_capable(inode_userns(inode), CAP_FOWNER);
> > + return 1;
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -1884,30 +1884,43 @@ other_userns:
> > * 10. We don't allow removal of NFS sillyrenamed files; it's handled by
> > * nfs_async_unlink().
> > */
> > -static int may_delete(struct inode *dir,struct dentry *victim,int isdir)
> > +static int may_delete(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *victim,
> > + int isdir, int replace)
> > {
> > - int error;
> > + int mask, error, is_sticky;
> > + struct inode *inode = victim->d_inode;
> >
> > - if (!victim->d_inode)
> > + if (!inode)
> > return -ENOENT;
> >
> > BUG_ON(victim->d_parent->d_inode != dir);
> > audit_inode_child(victim, dir);
> >
> > - error = inode_permission(dir, MAY_WRITE | MAY_EXEC);
> > + mask = MAY_WRITE | MAY_EXEC | MAY_DELETE_CHILD;
> > + if (replace)
> > + mask |= S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) ?
> > + MAY_CREATE_DIR : MAY_CREATE_FILE;
>
> I'm having trouble understanding this next bit:
>
> > + is_sticky = check_sticky(dir, inode);
> > + error = inode_permission(dir, mask);
> > + if ((error || is_sticky) && IS_RICHACL(inode) &&
> > + !inode_permission(dir, mask & ~(MAY_WRITE | MAY_DELETE_CHILD)) &&
> > + !inode_permission(inode, MAY_DELETE_SELF))
> > + error = 0;
>
> OK, so we can ignore the lack of write or delete permissions on the
> parent if we have delete_self permissions on the child. I guess that's
> right.
>
> Why the "|| is_sticky" above?
>
> Is there some less complicated why to write this?
we removed the ns_capable check out of check_sticky, because we don't
want to do capability check when richacl allows access. We also want to
make sure that even if mode bits allow access (inode_permission(dir, mask))
if sticky bit is set we do additional check.
-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
