linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v18 21/22] ext4: Add richacl support

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]

Date:	Tue, 15 Mar 2016 00:18:54 -0700
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	XFS Developers <xfs@....sgi.com>,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
	linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v18 21/22] ext4: Add richacl support

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 02:02:33PM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> >> +static inline int
> >> +ext4_acl_chmod(struct inode *inode, umode_t mode)
> >> +{
> >> +     if (IS_RICHACL(inode))
> >> +             return richacl_chmod(inode, inode->i_mode);
> >> +     return posix_acl_chmod(inode, inode->i_mode);
> >> +}
> >
> > Thi isn't ext4-specific and potentially duplicated in every caller.
> > Please provide this as a common helper.
> 
> This can go in neither fs.h nor posix_acl.h nor richacl.h unless we
> turn it into a macro, and I don't think we want to add a new header
> file for such extreme trivia.

I'd expect us to grow a few more of thos helper if we get the sharing
right (either a real common base object, or wrappers for anything
dealing with the acl pointers in the inode), so a new linux/acl.h
should be fine.