linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -V1 10/22] richacl: In-memory representation and helper functions

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 01 May 2014 21:12:15 +0530
From:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	agruen@...nel.org, bfields@...ldses.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, dhowells@...hat.com,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -V1 10/22] richacl: In-memory representation and helper functions

Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> writes:

> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 09:44:41PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> From: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...nel.org>
>> 
>> A richacl consists of an NFSv4 acl and an owner, group, and other mask.
>> These three masks correspond to the owner, group, and other file
>> permission bits, but they contain NFSv4 permissions instead of POSIX
>> permissions.
>> 
>> Each entry in the NFSv4 acl applies to the file owner (OWNER@), the
>> owning group (GROUP@), literally everyone (EVERYONE@), or to a specific
>> uid or gid.
>> 
>> As in the standard POSIX file permission model, each process is the
>> owner, group, or other file class.  A richacl grants a requested access
>> only if the NFSv4 acl in the richacl grants the access (according to the
>> NFSv4 permission check algorithm), and the file mask that applies to the
>> process includes the requested permissions.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...nel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ....
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * richace_is_same_identifier  -  are both identifiers the same?
>> + */
>> +int
>> +richace_is_same_identifier(const struct richace *a, const struct richace *b)
>> +{
>> +#define WHO_FLAGS (ACE4_SPECIAL_WHO | ACE4_IDENTIFIER_GROUP)
>> +	if ((a->e_flags & WHO_FLAGS) != (b->e_flags & WHO_FLAGS))
>> +		return 0;
>> +	return a->e_id == b->e_id;
>> +#undef WHO_FLAGS
>
> Ugh.
>
> ....


Will remove.


>
>> +#define richacl_for_each_entry(_ace, _acl) \
>> +	for (_ace = _acl->a_entries; \
>> +	     _ace != _acl->a_entries + _acl->a_count; \
>> +	     _ace++)
>> +
>> +#define richacl_for_each_entry_reverse(_ace, _acl) \
>> +	for (_ace = _acl->a_entries + _acl->a_count - 1; \
>> +	     _ace != _acl->a_entries - 1; \
>> +	     _ace--)
>
> somewhat lacking in ()...


Will add

>
>> +/* Flag values defined by rich-acl */
>> +#define ACL4_MASKED			0x80
>> +
>> +#define ACL4_VALID_FLAGS (			\
>> +		ACL4_MASKED)
>> +
>> +/* e_type values */
>> +#define ACE4_ACCESS_ALLOWED_ACE_TYPE	0x0000
>> +#define ACE4_ACCESS_DENIED_ACE_TYPE	0x0001
>> +/*#define ACE4_SYSTEM_AUDIT_ACE_TYPE	0x0002*/
>> +/*#define ACE4_SYSTEM_ALARM_ACE_TYPE	0x0003*/
>
> What's with all the commented out types?
>

These are NFSv4 ACL ACE types which we are not implementing. Just left
it there for documentation.

-aneesh

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/