[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070716204523.GJ21668@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 21:45:23 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
To: Satyam Sharma <ssatyam@....iitk.ac.in>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] utime(s): Honour CAP_FOWNER when times==NULL
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 01:00:42AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > if ((current->fsuid != inode->i_uid) && !capable(CAP_FOWNER))
> >
> > test is a rather common test, and in fact, arguably, every time you see
> > one part of it, you should probably see the other. Would it make sense to
> > make a helper inline function to do this, and replace all users? Doing a
> >
> > git grep 'fsuid.*\<i_uid\>'
> >
> > seems to show quite a few cases of this pattern..
>
> Yes, I thought of writing a helper function for this myself. The semantics
> of CAP_FOWNER sort of justify that, but probably better to get Al's views
> on this first.
Helper makes sense (and most of these places will become its call), but...
E.g. IIRC the change of UID requires CAP_CHOWN; CAP_FOWNER is not enough.
Ditto for change of GID. setlease() is using CAP_LEASE and that appears
to be intentional (no idea what relevant standards say here)...
I'd suggest converting the obvious cases with new helper and taking the
rest one-by-one after that. Some of those might want CAP_FOWNER added,
some not...
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists