From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sat, 08 Sep 2007 06:18:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.210]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id l88DIg4p025772 for ; Sat, 8 Sep 2007 06:18:45 -0700 Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 15:18:40 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [xfs-masters] [Bug 768] New: Move restrict_chown to mount-time option Message-ID: <20070908131840.GA18653@lst.de> References: <200709051831.l85IVsTR016106@oss.sgi.com> <20070906153529.GA3062@lst.de> <20070906161006.GA25035@filer.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> <20070907190427.GA8062@lst.de> <20070907191531.GA22883@filer.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070907191531.GA22883@filer.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Josef Sipek Cc: Christoph Hellwig , nick.couchman@seakr.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com 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.