From: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@suse.de>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@sgi.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@transmeta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] backout the xattr override access checks flag
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 11:20:25 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200302211120.25224.agruen@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030220222007.A21678@sgi.com>
On Friday 21 February 2003 04:20, you wrote:
> This check backs out the XATTR_KERNEL_CONTEXT that tells filesystems
> to ignore the lack of capabilities of the caller that went in in the
> last week (through akpm..).
>
> It's a cludgy interface design to have flags that change access checks,
> and there's a much easier way by raising the capabilities in the process
> that actually needs this in kernel mode
Thanks, I'm not fully convinced that raising capabilities temporarily in the
kernel is a good thing to do, but it surely obsoletes the
XATTR_KERNEL_CONTEXT flag.
> (not that such code even exists yet).
There is an HSM project for which this feature has been added. I think they
are using a loadable module.
> Something even better would probably be to move out the xattr access checks
> to common code.
There are two problems with that, so this doesn't seem any better to me,
either:
(a) We would have to decode attribute names twice, once for checking
permissions, and a second time for determining how to store them.
(b) Different file systems may implement different features with different,
file system specific limitations. The VFS layer tests would have to accept
all potentially useful things. The file system would have to re-check.
Cheers,
Andreas.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-02-21 10:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-02-21 3:20 [PATCH] backout the xattr override access checks flag Christoph Hellwig
2003-02-20 20:20 ` Andreas Dilger
2003-02-20 20:26 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-02-21 10:20 ` Andreas Gruenbacher [this message]
2003-02-21 15:54 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-02-21 16:32 ` Andreas Gruenbacher
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-02-21 12:50 Luka Renko
2003-02-21 15:58 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-02-23 19:28 Luka Renko
2003-02-23 19:36 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-02-23 22:16 ` Andreas Gruenbacher
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200302211120.25224.agruen@suse.de \
--to=agruen@suse.de \
--cc=hch@sgi.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@transmeta.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).