linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -V5 00/24] New ACL format for better NFSv4 acl interoperability

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20110302154943.GB29136@fieldses.org>
Date:	Wed, 2 Mar 2011 10:49:43 -0500
From:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To:	"Aneesh Kumar K. V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, sfrench@...ibm.com, agruen@...bit.com,
	dilger.kernel@...ger.ca, sandeen@...hat.com, jlayton@...hat.com,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -V5 00/24]  New ACL format for better NFSv4 acl
 interoperability

On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 12:20:36PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K. V wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:11:45 -0500, "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu> wrote:
> > Hi Aneesh,
> > 
> > What is the current status of this patch series?  I seem to remember
> > that Christoph and Al Viro had some objections; have those been
> > cleared yet?  If not, can you summarize what their objections are?
> 
> The main objection raised was the use of may_delete and may_create inode
> operations callback. They are gone now and we have MAY_* flags as
> favoured by Al Viro.  The new MAY_* flags added are 
> 
> #define MAY_CREATE_FILE 128
> #define MAY_CREATE_DIR 256
> #define MAY_DELETE_CHILD 512
> #define MAY_DELETE_SELF 1024
> #define MAY_TAKE_OWNERSHIP 2048
> #define MAY_CHMOD 4096
> #define MAY_SET_TIMES 8192
> 
> 
> > 
> > To be honest I haven't been paying super close attention to this patch
> > series, and I'm curious what needs to happen with it one way or
> > another.
> > 
> 
> IMHO we are ready to get first 11 patches upstream in the next merge
> window. ie the below set of patches.

Why aren't all of them ready?

--b.

> 
> vfs: Make acl_permission_check() work for richacls
> vfs: Add permission flags for setting file attributes
> vfs: Make the inode passed to inode_change_ok non-const
> vfs: Add delete child and delete self permission flags
> vfs: Add new file and directory create permission flags
> vfs: Optimize out IS_RICHACL() if CONFIG_FS_RICHACL is not defined
> vfs: Add IS_RICHACL() test for richacl support
> vfs: Add generic IS_ACL() test for acl support
> vfs: Add a comment to inode_permission()
> vfs: Pass all mask flags down to iop->check_acl
> vfs: Indicate that the permission functions take all the MAY_* flags
> 
> -aneesh
--
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/