From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 11:46:37 -0800 Subject: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 00/18] Consolidate Posix ACL implementation In-Reply-To: <279325185.39210.1386266234086.JavaMail.zimbra@linbit.com> References: <20131201115903.910559036@bombadil.infradead.org> <279325185.39210.1386266234086.JavaMail.zimbra@linbit.com> Message-ID: <20131206194637.GA32122@infradead.org> List-Id: To: cluster-devel.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 06:57:14PM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > I see that get_acl and set_acl are being defined in some but not all symlink inode operations (for example, btrfs them while ext4 does not), and that posix_acl_xattr_set() doesn't check if set_acl is defined. Symlinks cannot have ACLs, so set_acl should either never be defined for symlinks (and a NULL check is then needed in posix_acl_xattr_set()), or it is defined in all inode operations, and S_ISNLNK() check is needed in posix_acl_xattr_set(). That latter check should probably be added in any case to be on the safe side. Yes, we should add the check. We also in general should not have set_acl/get_acl on links and I'll look over it. > Patch 6 also declares posix_acl_prepare() but this function is never introduced; this must be a leftover from a previous version. Indeed. Thanks for the review!