[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070828195258.GA7332@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:52:58 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, nfs@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-cifs-client@...ts.samba.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [NFS] [PATCH 0/4] add killattr inode operation to allow filesystems to interpret ATTR_KILL_S*ID bits
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 03:49:51PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> Hmm... There has to be an implicit promise here that nobody else will
> ever try to set ATTR_KILL_SUID/ATTR_KILL_SGID and ATTR_MODE at the same
> time. Currently, that assumption is not there:
>
>
> > if (ia_valid & ATTR_KILL_SGID) {
> > attr->ia_valid &= ~ ATTR_KILL_SGID;
> > if ((mode & (S_ISGID | S_IXGRP)) == (S_ISGID | S_IXGRP)) {
> > if (!(ia_valid & ATTR_MODE)) {
> > ia_valid = attr->ia_valid |= ATTR_MODE;
> > attr->ia_mode = inode->i_mode;
> > }
> > attr->ia_mode &= ~S_ISGID;
> > }
> > }
>
> Should we perhaps just convert the above 'if (!(ia_valid & ATTR_MODE))'
> into a 'BUG_ON(ia_valid & ATTR_MODE)'?
Yes, sounds fine to me.
-
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