[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87d3fb5qbg.fsf@skywalker.in.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 15:06:03 +0530
From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
Cc: agruen@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -V6 11/26] vfs: Add permission flags for setting file attributes
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 16:55:03 -0400, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 10:55:33PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> > From: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@...nel.org>
> >
> > Some permission models can allow processes to take ownership of a file,
> > change the file permissions, and set the file timestamps. Introduce new
> > permission mask flags and check for those permissions in
> > inode_change_ok().
>
> These little helper functions seem like they might be reasonable cleanup
> even without the richacl_change_ok() piece; wonder if it'd be worth
> splitting out the cleanup and applying it now?
>
> Not that it's necessary--seems like a straightforward enough patch as
> is.
Those helpers also have richacl_chage_ok(..) done as a part of the call. So
they cannot directly be applied to upstream. But we can do similar
helpers for upstream and add richacl changes as a separate patch ? Is
that what you are suggesting. I can split this patch to two in that case
-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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists