SGID inheritance in different file-systems
Vasily Isaenko
vasily.isaenko at oracle.com
Thu Sep 5 09:42:27 CDT 2013
Thank you Eric and Carlos for your responses!
On 09/05/2013 06:41 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 9/5/13 9:33 AM, Vasily Isaenko wrote:
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> On 09/05/2013 06:30 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>> On 8/30/13 7:19 AM, Vasily Isaenko wrote:
>>>> Dear XFS Members,
>>>>
>>>> In the XFS test suite there is a test case generic/314 "Test SGID inheritance on subdirectories".
>>>> It is not specific to a particular filesystem thus selected for both xfs or ext4 test runs.
>>>> In other words, the same behaviour is expected and enforced for XFS and EXT4.
>>> Yep, and it passes on both of them, as well as on ext3, ext2, btrfs, and gfs2...
>>>
>>>> However, I have been told that EXT4 and XFS may have different behaviour as the
>>>> setgid-directory behavior is not guaranteed to work the same way on all filesystems.
>>> "I have been told" ... I'm guessing that you have tested a filesystem which doesn't
>>> behave this way? Which one?
>> yes, the generic/314 test has failed on xfs while passed on ext4 though.
>>
>> if this is intentional behaviour on xfs it is fine, but would it be possible to
>> make this test skipped on xfs then?
> no...
>
> When a test fails, you don't just turn it off; you figure out why it failed.
>
> Indeed, this test was written _because_ xfs failed, was fixed, and the
> test serves as a regression test to be sure it doesn't ever fail again.
>
> If you're testing an older kernel, presumably it doesn't have the fix.
> If you're testing a newer kernel, something else is wrong, because it
> passes for me just fine on xfs, upstream.
>
> Thanks,
> -Eric
>
>> Thank you,
>> Vasily
>>
>>>> Shall XFS test case reflect that difference or enforcing the same behaviour is appropriate?
>>> If you have information that a filesystem exists which does not inherit SGID, and
>>> that this behavior is intentional and correct and standards-compliant, then feel
>>> free to submit a patch.
>>>
>>> However, I think you'll need to have a convincing argument against the man pages.
>>>
>>> chmod(2) says:
>>>
>>> S_ISGID (02000) set-group-ID (set process effective group ID on
>>> execve(2); mandatory locking, as described in fcntl(2);
>>> take a new file’s group from parent directory, as
>>> described in chown(2) and mkdir(2))
>>>
>>> mkdir(2) says:
>>>
>>> The newly created directory will be owned by the effective user ID of the
>>> process. If the directory containing the file has the set-group-ID bit
>>> set, or if the file system is mounted with BSD group semantics (mount -o
>>> bsdgroups or, synonymously mount -o grpid), the new directory will inherit
>>> the group ownership from its parent; otherwise it will be owned by the
>>> effective group ID of the process.
>>>
>>> and chown(2) says:
>>>
>>> NOTES
>>> When a new file is created (by, for example, open(2) or mkdir(2)), its
>>> owner is made the same as the file system user ID of the creating process.
>>> The group of the file depends on a range of factors, including the type of
>>> file system, the options used to mount the file system, and whether or not
>>> the set-group-ID permission bit is enabled on the parent directory. If the
>>> file system supports the -o grpid (or, synonymously -o bsdgroups) and
>>> -o nogrpid (or, synonymously -o sysvgroups) mount(8) options, then the
>>> rules are as follows:
>>>
>>> * If the file system is mounted with -o grpid, then the group of a new file
>>> is made the same as that of the parent directory.
>>>
>>> * If the file system is mounted with -o nogrpid and the set-group-ID bit is
>>> disabled on the parent directory, then the group of a new file is made
>>> the same as the process’s file system GID.
>>>
>>> * If the file system is mounted with -o nogrpid and the set-group-ID bit is
>>> enabled on the parent directory, then the group of a new file is made the
>>> same as that of the parent directory.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Eric
>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Vasily
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> xfs mailing list
>>>> xfs at oss.sgi.com
>>>> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xfs mailing list
>>> xfs at oss.sgi.com
>>> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
More information about the xfs
mailing list