Bruce,
2015-05-15 22:51 GMT+02:00 J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 01:04:16PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> This comment is a little confusing:
>
>> + * This function does not consider the masks in @acl.
>
> Given that we do this later:
>
>> + if (acl->a_flags & RICHACL_MASKED) {
>> + owner.allowed &= acl->a_owner_mask;
>> + group.allowed &= acl->a_group_mask;
>> + everyone.allowed &= acl->a_other_mask;
>> + }
Indeed, the comment seems to be a left-over from a previous version, sorry.
> I think the difference is that here you're checking that the end result
> after applying masks is mode-equivalent, whereas in riachacl_equiv_mode
> [...] you're also checking whether the masks themselves are
> mode-equivalent?
Yes.
>Is that the right thing to do?
This patch and its consequences probably weren't thought through well enough
initially. I meanwhile think that it doesn't matter if the masks themselves are
mode-equivalent and that we can drop this check.
Thanks,
Andreas
--
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
