On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:42:16 -0400, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 09:02:43PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> > From: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Some permission models distinguish between the permission to create a
> > non-directory and a directory. Pass this information down to
> > inode_permission() as mask flags
> ...
> > diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
> > index f3ebf86..60361c6 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> > @@ -67,6 +67,8 @@ struct inodes_stat_t {
> > #define MAY_CHDIR 0x00000040
> > /* called from RCU mode, don't block */
> > #define MAY_NOT_BLOCK 0x00000080
> > +#define MAY_CREATE_FILE 0x00000100
> > +#define MAY_CREATE_DIR 0x00000200
>
> Hm, are the flags in fs/nfsd/vfs.h going to need fixing up?
>
> Looking at the nfsd code.... No, I guess it's OK, nfsd does
>
> err = inode_permission(inode, acc & (MAY_READ|MAY_WRITE|MAY_EXEC));
>
nfsd bits need fixing once nfs starts doing richacl permission check.
The changes I did can be found at
https://github.com/kvaneesh/linux/commits/richacl-fullset/
> So we can wait to fix up any collisions until we need to pass these
> extra bits.
>
Yes. And that we will do once we get the VFS and local file system
changes upstream.
-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
