[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 00/18] Consolidate Posix ACL implementation

To: Andreas Gruenbacher <andreas.gruenbacher@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/18] Consolidate Posix ACL implementation
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 11:46:37 -0800
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-f2fs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-mtd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@xxxxxxxx>, Joel Becker <jlbec@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, reiserfs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, jfs-discussion@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, cluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <279325185.39210.1386266234086.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20131201115903.910559036@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <279325185.39210.1386266234086.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 06:57:14PM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> I see that get_acl and set_acl are being defined in some but not all symlink 
> inode operations (for example, btrfs them while ext4 does not), and that 
> posix_acl_xattr_set() doesn't check if set_acl is defined.  Symlinks cannot 
> have ACLs, so set_acl should either never be defined for symlinks (and a NULL 
> check is then needed in posix_acl_xattr_set()), or it is defined in all inode 
> operations, and S_ISNLNK() check is needed in posix_acl_xattr_set().  That 
> latter check should probably be added in any case to be on the safe side.

Yes, we should add the check.  We also in general should not have
set_acl/get_acl on links and I'll look over it.

> Patch 6 also declares posix_acl_prepare() but this function is never 
> introduced; this must be a leftover from a previous version.


Thanks for the review!

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>