On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 09:44:37PM +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 | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> include/linux/fs.h | 2 ++
> 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/namei.c b/fs/namei.c
> index 028bc8bcf77c..56ac7613fbca 100644
> --- a/fs/namei.c
> +++ b/fs/namei.c
> @@ -446,7 +446,7 @@ static int sb_permission(struct super_block *sb, struct inode *inode, int mask)
> * changing the "normal" UIDs which 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)
> {
> @@ -2366,11 +2366,25 @@ kern_path_mountpoint(int dfd, const char *name, struct path *path,
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(kern_path_mountpoint);
>
> +
> +/*
> + * We should have exec permission on directory and MAY_DELETE_SELF
> + * on the object being deleted.
> + */
> +static int richacl_may_selfdelete(struct inode *dir,
> + struct inode *inode, int replace_mask)
> +{
> + return (IS_RICHACL(inode) &&
> + (inode_permission(dir, MAY_EXEC | replace_mask) == 0) &&
> + (inode_permission(inode, MAY_DELETE_SELF) == 0));
> +}
Can't say I like these "richacl" prefixes. Why not just "may_*"
like all the other permission checks?
> @@ -2414,13 +2431,19 @@ static int may_delete(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *victim, bool isdir)
> BUG_ON(victim->d_parent->d_inode != dir);
> audit_inode_child(dir, victim, AUDIT_TYPE_CHILD_DELETE);
>
> - error = inode_permission(dir, MAY_WRITE | MAY_EXEC);
> + mask = MAY_WRITE | MAY_EXEC | MAY_DELETE_CHILD;
> + if (replace)
> + replace_mask = S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) ?
> + MAY_CREATE_DIR : MAY_CREATE_FILE;
> + error = inode_permission(dir, mask | replace_mask);
> + if (error && richacl_may_selfdelete(dir, inode, replace_mask))
> + error = 0;
> if (error)
> return error;
> if (IS_APPEND(dir))
> return -EPERM;
>
> - if (check_sticky(dir, inode) || IS_APPEND(inode) ||
> + if (check_sticky(dir, inode, replace_mask) || IS_APPEND(inode) ||
> IS_IMMUTABLE(inode) || IS_SWAPFILE(inode))
> return -EPERM;
> if (isdir) {
> @@ -3539,7 +3562,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(dentry_unhash);
>
> int vfs_rmdir(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry)
> {
> - int error = may_delete(dir, dentry, 1);
> + int error = may_delete(dir, dentry, 1, 0);
>
> if (error)
> return error;
> @@ -3658,7 +3681,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE1(rmdir, const char __user *, pathname)
> int vfs_unlink(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry, struct inode **delegated_inode)
> {
> struct inode *target = dentry->d_inode;
> - int error = may_delete(dir, dentry, 0);
> + int error = may_delete(dir, dentry, 0, 0);
>
> if (error)
> return error;
> @@ -4060,7 +4083,7 @@ int vfs_rename(struct inode *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry,
> if (source == target)
> return 0;
>
> - error = may_delete(old_dir, old_dentry, is_dir);
> + error = may_delete(old_dir, old_dentry, is_dir, 0);
> if (error)
> return error;
>
> @@ -4070,9 +4093,9 @@ int vfs_rename(struct inode *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry,
> new_is_dir = d_is_dir(new_dentry);
>
> if (!(flags & RENAME_EXCHANGE))
> - error = may_delete(new_dir, new_dentry, is_dir);
> + error = may_delete(new_dir, new_dentry, is_dir, 1);
> else
> - error = may_delete(new_dir, new_dentry, new_is_dir);
> + error = may_delete(new_dir, new_dentry, new_is_dir, 1);
Another boolean parameter that means nothing at the call site. This
should really be passing a flags field, not a bunch of booleans that
are simply evaluated into flags...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
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
