Re: SGID inheritance in different file-systems

[Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>]

On 9/5/13 9:33 AM, Vasily Isaenko wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> 
> On 09/05/2013 06:30 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 8/30/13 7:19 AM, Vasily Isaenko wrote:
>>> Dear XFS Members,
>>>
>>> In the XFS test suite there is a test case generic/314 "Test SGID inheritance on subdirectories".
>>> It is not specific to a particular filesystem thus selected for both xfs or ext4 test runs.
>>> In other words, the same behaviour is expected and enforced for XFS and EXT4.
>> Yep, and it passes on both of them, as well as on ext3, ext2, btrfs, and gfs2...
>>
>>> However, I have been told that EXT4 and XFS may have different behaviour as the
>>> setgid-directory behavior is not guaranteed to work the same way on all filesystems.
>> "I have been told" ... I'm guessing that you have tested a filesystem which doesn't
>> behave this way?  Which one?
> 
> yes, the generic/314 test has failed on xfs while passed on ext4 though.
> 
> if this is intentional behaviour on xfs it is fine, but would it be possible to
> make this test skipped on xfs then?

no...

When a test fails, you don't just turn it off; you figure out why it failed.

Indeed, this test was written _because_ xfs failed, was fixed, and the
test serves as a regression test to be sure it doesn't ever fail again.

If you're testing an older kernel, presumably it doesn't have the fix.
If you're testing a newer kernel, something else is wrong, because it
passes for me just fine on xfs, upstream.

Thanks,
-Eric

> Thank you,
> Vasily
> 
>>
>>> Shall XFS test case reflect that difference or enforcing the same behaviour is appropriate?
>> If you have information that a filesystem exists which does not inherit SGID, and
>> that this behavior is intentional and correct and standards-compliant, then feel
>> free to submit a patch.
>>
>> However, I think you'll need to have a convincing argument against the man pages.
>>
>> chmod(2) says:
>>
>>         S_ISGID  (02000)  set-group-ID   (set   process   effective   group  ID  on
>>                           execve(2); mandatory locking, as described  in  fcntl(2);
>>                           take  a  new  file’s  group  from  parent  directory,  as
>>                           described in chown(2) and mkdir(2))
>>
>> mkdir(2) says:
>>
>>         The newly created directory will be owned by the effective user ID  of  the
>>         process.   If  the  directory  containing the file has the set-group-ID bit
>>         set, or if the file system is mounted with BSD group  semantics  (mount  -o
>>         bsdgroups  or, synonymously mount -o grpid), the new directory will inherit
>>         the group ownership from its parent; otherwise it  will  be  owned  by  the
>>         effective group ID of the process.
>>
>> and chown(2) says:
>>
>> NOTES
>>         When  a  new  file  is  created (by, for example, open(2) or mkdir(2)), its
>>         owner is made the same as the file system user ID of the creating  process.
>>         The  group of the file depends on a range of factors, including the type of
>>         file system, the options used to mount the file system, and whether or  not
>>         the set-group-ID permission bit is enabled on the parent directory.  If the
>>         file system supports  the  -o grpid  (or,  synonymously  -o bsdgroups)  and
>>         -o nogrpid  (or,  synonymously  -o sysvgroups)  mount(8)  options, then the
>>         rules are as follows:
>>
>>         * If the file system is mounted with -o grpid, then the group of a new file
>>           is made the same as that of the parent directory.
>>
>>         * If the file system is mounted with -o nogrpid and the set-group-ID bit is
>>           disabled on the parent directory, then the group of a new  file  is  made
>>           the same as the process’s file system GID.
>>
>>         * If the file system is mounted with -o nogrpid and the set-group-ID bit is
>>           enabled on the parent directory, then the group of a new file is made the
>>           same as that of the parent directory.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Eric
>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Vasily
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xfs mailing list
>>> xfs@oss.sgi.com
>>> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xfs mailing list
>> xfs@oss.sgi.com
>> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
> 

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