On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:29:22AM -0300, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > Hi Dave, > > > > @@ -594,9 +594,10 @@ xfs_setattr_nonsize( > > > * The set-user-ID and set-group-ID bits of a file will be > > > * cleared upon successful return from chown() > > > */ > > > - if ((ip->i_d.di_mode & (S_ISUID|S_ISGID)) && > > > - !capable(CAP_FSETID)) > > > - ip->i_d.di_mode &= ~(S_ISUID|S_ISGID); > > > + if (!S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode)) > > > + if ((ip->i_d.di_mode & (S_ISUID|S_ISGID)) && > > > + !capable(CAP_FSETID)) > > > + ip->i_d.di_mode &= ~(S_ISUID|S_ISGID); > > > > I'm not sure I understand why this is part of this patch - the ACL > > path does not enter this code branch (ATTR_UID/GID) so it doesn't > > affect ACL inheritence. So this is some other behavioural change? > > > My apologies to have not commented it. > > During my code surfing to understand the problem, and what places we revoked > sgid, I found this one, and, based on chmod specifications, we should keep sgid > on the directory while chmoding it, unless the user explicitly ask for sgid > removal, otherwise, if chmoding a file, we remove sgid if this isn't specified > in the new mode. So, I've added a check here to ensure the inode isn't a dir > before remove the sgid bit. Does notify_change() or inode_change_ok() handle this appropriately? i.e. do we even need that code there? > Should I remove it from the patch? It's unrelated to the ACL problem, so put it in a separate patch with it's own commit description ;) Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
