From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 087A07F37 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:29:32 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01221304043 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 06:29:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id fGKVvNxiAXCixwDQ for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 06:29:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:29:22 -0300 From: Carlos Maiolino Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: fix sgid inheritance for subdirectories inheriting default acls [V2] Message-ID: <20130619132921.GA5200@andromeda.usersys.redhat.com> References: <1371569536-5779-1-git-send-email-cmaiolino@redhat.com> <20130618224351.GB29338@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130618224351.GB29338@dastard> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com Hi Dave, > > @@ -594,9 +594,10 @@ xfs_setattr_nonsize( > > * The set-user-ID and set-group-ID bits of a file will be > > * cleared upon successful return from chown() > > */ > > - if ((ip->i_d.di_mode & (S_ISUID|S_ISGID)) && > > - !capable(CAP_FSETID)) > > - ip->i_d.di_mode &= ~(S_ISUID|S_ISGID); > > + if (!S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode)) > > + if ((ip->i_d.di_mode & (S_ISUID|S_ISGID)) && > > + !capable(CAP_FSETID)) > > + ip->i_d.di_mode &= ~(S_ISUID|S_ISGID); > > I'm not sure I understand why this is part of this patch - the ACL > path does not enter this code branch (ATTR_UID/GID) so it doesn't > affect ACL inheritence. So this is some other behavioural change? > My apologies to have not commented it. During my code surfing to understand the problem, and what places we revoked sgid, I found this one, and, based on chmod specifications, we should keep sgid on the directory while chmoding it, unless the user explicitly ask for sgid removal, otherwise, if chmoding a file, we remove sgid if this isn't specified in the new mode. So, I've added a check here to ensure the inode isn't a dir before remove the sgid bit. Should I remove it from the patch? > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@fromorbit.com -- Carlos _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs