From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Josef Sipek <jsipek@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, nick.couchman@seakr.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [xfs-masters] [Bug 768] New: Move restrict_chown to mount-time option
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 15:18:40 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070908131840.GA18653@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070907191531.GA22883@filer.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu>
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 03:15:31PM -0400, Josef Sipek wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 09:04:27PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 12:10:06PM -0400, Josef Sipek wrote:
> > > > It's quite easily doable. I don't have time for that right now, but if
> > > > anyone wants to do it's just adding the option to the mount option
> > > > parser and adding a flag to the mount structure.
> > >
> > > Wouldn't making this a generic mount-option make sense? Or is it far too
> > > low-level of a concept?
> >
> > Basically it's a simple boolean flag that's checked in the inode
> > allocator when we decide about the permission of the newly created
> > inode. Because of that the implementation will be inherently
> > filesystem-specific.
>
> Couldn't that be done just before the call to ->create as a mask on the
> mode?
Sorry, my post above was talking about the bsd group semantics for which
we had a similar discussion before. For restricted_chown the method
handling it is ->setattr and given how it's defined to be filesystem
specific I can't see how to do it generically.
> > We could still add a binary mount flag for it in common code, but my
> > stance is to only add these when we actually need to check the flag in
> > general code.
>
> Or if the feature is so useful that all fs should support it. Is it useful?
> If not, then I agree, not cluttering the VFS is a Good Thing.
It's not really a feature, more a workaround for legacy behaviour in
other Unix variants. It basically disallows chown in some cases where
it's normally allowed.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-09-08 13:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <200709051831.l85IVsTR016106@oss.sgi.com>
[not found] ` <20070906153529.GA3062@lst.de>
2007-09-06 16:10 ` [xfs-masters] [Bug 768] New: Move restrict_chown to mount-time option Josef Sipek
2007-09-07 19:04 ` Christoph Hellwig
2007-09-07 19:15 ` Josef Sipek
2007-09-08 13:18 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
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=20070908131840.GA18653@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jsipek@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu \
--cc=nick.couchman@seakr.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.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