[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1JzA2r-0007uK-8L@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 14:37:21 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: zippel@...ux-m68k.org
CC: miklos@...redi.hu, 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()
> > > 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... :-(
> >
> > That check was added quite some time ago:
> >
> > commit a343bb7750e6a098909c34f5c5dfddbc4fa40053
> > Author: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
> > Date: Tue Aug 22 20:06:03 2006 -0400
> >
> > VFS: Fix access("file", X_OK) in the presence of ACLs
> >
> > Also it sounds just plain wrong to allow execution without an x bit.
> > It could cause nasty surprises at least. What was the intended
> > purpose of that code, and why did nobody notice when it stopped
> > working?
>
> As I said to allow lookup on files.
That requires a quite bit more support from the VFS than just allowing
lookup to work on regular files without x bits. You'll have big
trouble with hard links for example: the VFS doesn't like non-leaf
dentries to be aliased.
Besides hfsplus_permission() did not differentiate between execve on
the file and lookup on that file, allowing both. Which is obviously
wrong.
Miklos
--
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