From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 06/14] hfsplus: remove hfsplus_permission()
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 14:28:19 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0805221427300.18302@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20080521171458.077908538@szeredi.hu> <20080521171549.964767446@szeredi.hu>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0805212232500.18302@localhost.localdomain>
 <E1Jz5gq-0007F4-AQ@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0805221358080.18302@localhost.localdomain>
 <E1Jz9jk-0007rg-5W@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org,
	viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner+glk-linux-kernel-3=40m.gmane.org-S935434AbYEVM2x@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <E1Jz9jk-0007rg-5W@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

Hi,

On Thu, 22 May 2008, Miklos Szeredi wrote:

> > That check didn't used to be there and that the HFS+ check is older than 
> > that might have given you the idea that it at least used to work.
> > So now the only way for a fs to differentiate between lookup and exec is 
> > gone... :-(
> 
> That check was added quite some time ago:
> 
>    commit a343bb7750e6a098909c34f5c5dfddbc4fa40053
>    Author: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
>    Date:   Tue Aug 22 20:06:03 2006 -0400
>    
>        VFS: Fix access("file", X_OK) in the presence of ACLs
> 
> Also it sounds just plain wrong to allow execution without an x bit.
> It could cause nasty surprises at least.  What was the intended
> purpose of that code, and why did nobody notice when it stopped
> working?

As I said to allow lookup on files.

bye, Roman