linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 1/7] VFS: Introduce new O

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: <20140120133424.09328108@alan.etchedpixels.co.uk>
Date:	Mon, 20 Jan 2014 13:34:24 +0000
From:	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Pavel Shilovsky <piastry@...rsoft.ru>
Cc:	Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-cifs <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux NFS Mailing list <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	wine-devel@...ehq.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/7] VFS: Introduce new O_DENY* open flags

> > (and why not just use EPERM, it has the meaning you want already) 
> We need to determine if we have a share reservation error to map it
> accurately in file servers and wine.

Ok

> > Shouldn't this also check for CAP_SYS_DAC or some similar permission so
> > that root can override such a mess (eg to fix full disks in an
> > emergency) ?
> 
> May be it's better to let root an ability to remount the system
> without sharelock mount option and then fix an emergency?

Doesn't that involve breaking the service for all users of the system
relying upon those locks, while root being allowed to ignore the locks
does not ?

Alan
--
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/