xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH v23 20/22] vfs: Add richacl permission checking

To: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@xxxxxxxxxx>, Alexander Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v23 20/22] vfs: Add richacl permission checking
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 08:13:54 -0400
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>, Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@xxxxxxxxx>, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-cifs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1467294433-3222-21-git-send-email-agruenba@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1467294433-3222-1-git-send-email-agruenba@xxxxxxxxxx> <1467294433-3222-21-git-send-email-agruenba@xxxxxxxxxx>
On Thu, 2016-06-30 at 15:47 +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> Hook the richacl permission checking function into the vfs.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Âfs/namei.c | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> Â1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/namei.c b/fs/namei.c
> index 7a822d0..48c9958 100644
> --- a/fs/namei.c
> +++ b/fs/namei.c
> @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
> Â#include 
> Â#include 
> Â#include 
> +#include 
> Â#include 
> Â#include 
> Â#include 
> @@ -256,7 +257,43 @@ void putname(struct filename *name)
> Â             __putname(name);
> Â}
> Â
> -static int check_acl(struct inode *inode, int mask)
> +static int check_richacl(struct inode *inode, int mask)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_FS_RICHACL
> +     if (mask & MAY_NOT_BLOCK) {
> +             struct base_acl *base_acl;
> +
> +             base_acl = rcu_dereference(inode->i_acl);
> +             if (!base_acl)
> +                     goto no_acl;
> +             /* no ->get_richacl() calls in RCU mode... */
> +             if (is_uncached_acl(base_acl))
> +                     return -ECHILD;
> +             return richacl_permission(inode, richacl(base_acl),
> +                                     ÂÂmask & ~MAY_NOT_BLOCK);
> +     } else {
> +             struct richacl *acl;
> +
> +             acl = get_richacl(inode);
> +             if (IS_ERR(acl))
> +                     return PTR_ERR(acl);
> +             if (acl) {
> +                     int error = richacl_permission(inode, acl, mask);
> +                     richacl_put(acl);
> +                     return error;
> +             }
> +     }
> +no_acl:
> +#endif

nit: Can you move the above to a static inline or something that becomes a noop 
when the config var is turned off?

> +     if (mask & (MAY_DELETE_SELF | MAY_TAKE_OWNERSHIP |
> +             ÂÂÂÂMAY_CHMOD | MAY_SET_TIMES)) {
> +             /* File permission bits cannot grant this. */
> +             return -EACCES;
> +     }
> +     return -EAGAIN;
> +}
> +
> +static int check_posix_acl(struct inode *inode, int mask)
> Â{
> Â#ifdef CONFIG_FS_POSIX_ACL
> Â     if (mask & MAY_NOT_BLOCK) {
> @@ -294,11 +331,24 @@ static int acl_permission_check(struct inode *inode, 
> int mask)
> Â{
> Â     unsigned int mode = inode->i_mode;
> Â
> +     /*
> +     Â* With POSIX ACLs, the (mode & S_IRWXU) bits exactly match the owner
> +     Â* permissions, and we can skip checking posix acls for the owner.
> +     Â* With richacls, the owner may be granted fewer permissions than the
> +     Â* mode bits seem to suggest (for example, append but not write), and
> +     Â* we always need to check the richacl.
> +     Â*/
> +
> +     if (IS_RICHACL(inode)) {
> +             int error = check_richacl(inode, mask);
> +             if (error != -EAGAIN)
> +                     return error;
> +     }
> Â     if (likely(uid_eq(current_fsuid(), inode->i_uid)))
> Â             mode >>= 6;
> Â     else {
> Â             if (IS_POSIXACL(inode) && (mode & S_IRWXG)) {
> -                     int error = check_acl(inode, mask);
> +                     int error = check_posix_acl(inode, mask);
> Â                     if (error != -EAGAIN)
> Â                             return error;
> Â             }

Looks fine other than the nit above:

Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>

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