* Darrick J. Wong: > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 10:11:28AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 08:16:04AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: >> > xfs_setattr_nonsize calls posix_acl_chmod which returns EOPNOTSUPP >> > because the xfs symlink inode_operations do not include a ->set_acl >> > pointer. >> > >> > I /think/ that posix_acl_chmod code exists to enforce that the file mode >> > reflects any acl that might be set on the inode, but in this case the >> > inode is a symbolic link. >> > >> > I don't remember off the top of my head if ACLs are supposed to apply to >> > symlinks, but what do you think about adding get_acl/set_acl pointers to >> > xfs_symlink_inode_operations and xfs_inline_symlink_inode_operations ? >> >> Symlinks don't have permissions or ACLs, so adding them makes no >> sense. > > Ahh, I thought so! > >> xfs doesn't seem all that different from the other file systems, >> so I suspect you'll also see it with other on-disk file systems. > > Yeah, I noticed that btrfs seems to exhibit the same behavior. > > I also noticed that ext4 actually /does/ implement [gs]et_acl for > symlinks. Rich Felker noticed this, which may be related: | Further, I've found some inconsistent behavior with ext4: chmod on the | magic symlink fails with EOPNOTSUPP as in Florian's test, but fchmod | on the O_PATH fd succeeds and changes the symlink mode. This is with | 5.4. Cany anyone else confirm this? Is it a problem? It looks broken to me because fchmod (as an inode-changing operation) is not supposed to work on O_PATH descriptors.
