[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0805221358080.18302@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 14:02:31 +0200 (CEST)
From: Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org,
viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 06/14] hfsplus: remove hfsplus_permission()
Hi,
On Thu, 22 May 2008, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > No, it's not, it allows for HFS+ specific special case to allow the lookup
> > of the resource fork.
>
> Sorry I just don't see how that code would allow anything. The only
> place hfsplus_permission() is called is from permission() in namei.c,
> and in that case it _is_ equivalent. Look:
>
> hfsplus_permission():
>
> if (S_ISREG(inode->i_mode) && mask & MAY_EXEC && !(inode->i_mode & 0111))
> return 0;
>
> permission():
>
> retval = inode->i_op->permission(inode, submask, nd);
> if (!retval) {
> /*
> * Exec permission on a regular file is denied if none
> * of the execute bits are set.
> *
> * This check should be done by the ->permission()
> * method.
> */
> if ((mask & MAY_EXEC) && S_ISREG(inode->i_mode) &&
> !(inode->i_mode & S_IXUGO))
> return -EACCES;
That check didn't used to be there and that the HFS+ check is older than
that might have given you the idea that it at least used to work.
So now the only way for a fs to differentiate between lookup and exec is
gone... :-(
bye, Roman
--
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