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:   Wed, 11 Oct 2023 15:59:22 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <>
To:     Max Kellermann <>
Cc:     Jan Kara <>, Xiubo Li <>,
        Ilya Dryomov <>,
        Jeff Layton <>, Jan Kara <>,
        Dave Kleikamp <>,,,,,
        Christian Brauner <>,
        Yang Xu <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fs/{posix_acl,ext2,jfs,ceph}: apply umask if ACL
 support is disabled

On Wed 11-10-23 14:27:49, Max Kellermann wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 2:18 PM Max Kellermann <> wrote:
> > But without the other filesystems. I'll resend it with just the
> > posix_acl.h hunk.
> Thinking again, I don't think this is the proper solution. This may
> server as a workaround so those broken filesystems don't suffer from
> this bug, but it's not proper.
> posix_acl_create() is only supposed to appy the umask if the inode
> supports ACLs; if not, the VFS is supposed to do it. But if the
> filesystem pretends to have ACL support but the kernel does not, it's
> really a filesystem bug. Hacking the umask code into
> posix_acl_create() for that inconsistent case doesn't sound right.
> A better workaround would be this patch:
> I submitted it more than 5 years ago, it got one positive review, but
> was never merged.
> This patch enables the VFS's umask code even if the filesystem
> prerents to support ACLs. This still doesn't fix the filesystem bug,
> but makes VFS's behavior consistent.

OK, that solution works for me as well. I agree it seems a tad bit cleaner.
Christian, which one would you prefer?

Jan Kara <>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists