[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Xine.LNX.4.64.0805090937550.24909@us.intercode.com.au>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 09:45:02 +1000 (EST)
From: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>,
sds@...ho.nsa.gov, casey@...aufler-ca.com
Subject: Re: [patch 07/24] fat: dont call notify_change
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 11:13:34AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>
> >
> > The FAT_IOCTL_SET_ATTRIBUTES ioctl() calls notify_change() to change
> > the file mode before changing the inode attributes. Replace with
> > explicit call to fat_setattr().
> >
> > This is equivalent, except that security_inode_setattr() is not called
> > before fat_setattr(). I think this is not needed, since the mode
> > change is just a side effect of the attribute change.
>
> Actually I think we want the security_inode_setattr. This is an
> implicit chmode when switching the ATTR_RO flag on and off and we should
> have the full security check for it. Then again I'm not sure the
> security modules care about this level of detail because there's
> probably even worse ioctl hidden somewhere.
>
> Ccing the Selinux guys and Casey in case they care.
>
I don't know of any situation where we'd have policy differentating the
ioctl check from setattr for FAT (or any filesystem).
- James
--
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>
--
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