[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJfpegtJbDc=uqpP-KKKpP0da=vkxcCExpNDBHwOdGj-+MsowQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2024 15:47:27 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Max Kellermann <max.kellermann@...os.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Don't reduce symlink i_mode by umask if no ACL support
On Thu, 9 May 2024 at 15:41, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/acl.h b/fs/ext4/acl.h
> index ef4c19e5f570..566625286442 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/acl.h
> +++ b/fs/ext4/acl.h
> @@ -71,7 +71,8 @@ ext4_init_acl(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir)
> /* usually, the umask is applied by posix_acl_create(), but if
> ext4 ACL support is disabled at compile time, we need to do
> it here, because posix_acl_create() will never be called */
> - inode->i_mode &= ~current_umask();
> + if (!S_ISLNK(inode->i_mode))
> + inode->i_mode &= ~current_umask();
I think this should just be removed unconditionally, since the VFS now
takes care of mode masking in vfs_prepare_mode().
Thanks,
Miklos
Powered by blists - more mailing lists