[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrUoBnPyEGExpoDzHOCgnHh5=a1ROALmb63LLJZG+L=aQA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:36:15 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Andreas Gruenbacher <andreas.gruenbacher@...il.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v6 03/40] vfs: Add MAY_DELETE_SELF and MAY_DELETE_CHILD
permission flags
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 4:53 AM, Andreas Gruenbacher
<andreas.gruenbacher@...il.com> wrote:
> Normally, deleting a file requires write and execute access to the parent
> directory. With Richacls, a process with MAY_DELETE_SELF access to a file
> may delete the file even without write access to the parent directory.
>
> To support that, pass the MAY_DELETE_CHILD mask flag to inode_permission()
> when checking for delete access inside a directory, and MAY_DELETE_SELF
> when checking for delete access to a file itelf.
>
> The MAY_DELETE_SELF permission does not override the sticky directory
> check. It probably should.
Silly question from the peanut gallery: is there any such thing as
opening an fd pointing at a file such that the "open file description"
(i.e. the struct file) captures the right to delete the file?
IOW do we need FMODE_DELETE_SELF?
--Andy
--
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