[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131206194637.GA32122@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 11:46:37 -0800
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Andreas Gruenbacher <andreas.gruenbacher@...bit.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@...e.com>,
Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>,
reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com,
jfs-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net, cluster-devel@...hat.com,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/18] Consolidate Posix ACL implementation
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.
Indeed.
Thanks for the review!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists