From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] 9p: do no return 0 from ->check_acl without actually
	checking
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 17:36:38 +0200
Message-ID: <20110723153638.GA10887@lst.de>
References: <20110723153621.GA10832@lst.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:33419 "EHLO newverein.lst.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752516Ab1GWPgj (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sat, 23 Jul 2011 11:36:39 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20110723153621.GA10832@lst.de>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

If we do not want to use ACLs we at least need to perform normal Unix
permission checks.  From the comment I'm not quite sure that's what
is intended, but if 0p wants to do permission checks entirely on the
server it needs to do so in ->permission, not in ->check_acl.

Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>

Index: linux-2.6/fs/9p/acl.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/fs/9p/acl.c	2011-07-23 16:39:19.200749795 +0200
+++ linux-2.6/fs/9p/acl.c	2011-07-23 16:39:24.690749763 +0200
@@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ int v9fs_check_acl(struct inode *inode,
 		 * On access = client  and acl = on mode get the acl
 		 * values from the server
 		 */
-		return 0;
+		return -EAGAIN;
 	}
 	acl = v9fs_get_cached_acl(inode, ACL_TYPE_ACCESS);