Re: [PATCH] xfs: fix sgid inheritance for subdirectories inheriting default acls [V2]

[Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:29:22AM -0300, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> 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.

Does notify_change() or inode_change_ok() handle this appropriately?
i.e. do we even need that code there?

> Should I remove it from the patch?

It's unrelated to the ACL problem, so put it in a separate patch
with it's own commit description ;)

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs