[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180718201518.GX30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 21:15:18 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] call_with_creds()
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 09:04:11PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:53:48PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:46 PM Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > Huh? Nevermind ->write(), what about open()?
> >
> > What about open?
> >
> > At open time, file->f_cred is the same as current_cred().
>
> int cachefiles_write_page(struct fscache_storage *op, struct page *page)
> {
> ...
> file = dentry_open(&path, O_RDWR | O_LARGEFILE, cache->cache_cred);
>
>
> int ecryptfs_privileged_open(struct file **lower_file,
> struct dentry *lower_dentry,
> struct vfsmount *lower_mnt,
> const struct cred *cred)
> ...
> (*lower_file) = dentry_open(&req.path, flags, cred);
Actually, scratch that one - in this case it is current_cred() (whether that's
the right value or not).
cachefile_write_page() case is for real, AFAICS.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists