Searched hist:"476 af919" (Results 1 – 1 of 1) sorted by relevance
| /openbmc/linux/fs/orangefs/ |
| H A D | acl.c | 476af919 Thu Jul 09 14:02:32 CDT 2020 Mike Marshall <hubcap@omnibond.com> orangefs: posix acl fix...
Al Viro pointed out that I broke some acl functionality...
* ACLs could not be fully removed
* posix_acl_chmod would be called while the old ACL was still cached
* new mode propagated to orangefs server before ACL.
... when I tried to make sure that modes that got changed as a
result of ACL-sets would be sent back to the orangefs server.
Not wanting to try and change the code without having some cases to
test it with, I began to hunt for setfacl examples that were expressible
in pure mode. Along the way I found examples like the following
which confused me:
user A had a file (/home/A/asdf) with mode 740
user B was in user A's group
user C was not in user A's group
setfacl -m u:C:rwx /home/A/asdf
The above setfacl caused ls -l /home/A/asdf to show a mode of 770,
making it appear that all users in user A's group now had full access
to /home/A/asdf, however, user B still only had read acces. Madness.
Anywho, I finally found that the above (whacky as it is) appears to
be "posixly on purpose" and explained in acl(5):
If the ACL has an ACL_MASK entry, the group permissions correspond
to the permissions of the ACL_MASK entry.
Signed-off-by: Mike Marshall <hubcap@omnibond.com>
476af919 Thu Jul 09 14:02:32 CDT 2020 Mike Marshall <hubcap@omnibond.com> orangefs: posix acl fix...
Al Viro pointed out that I broke some acl functionality...
* ACLs could not be fully removed
* posix_acl_chmod would be called while the old ACL was still cached
* new mode propagated to orangefs server before ACL.
... when I tried to make sure that modes that got changed as a
result of ACL-sets would be sent back to the orangefs server.
Not wanting to try and change the code without having some cases to
test it with, I began to hunt for setfacl examples that were expressible
in pure mode. Along the way I found examples like the following
which confused me:
user A had a file (/home/A/asdf) with mode 740
user B was in user A's group
user C was not in user A's group
setfacl -m u:C:rwx /home/A/asdf
The above setfacl caused ls -l /home/A/asdf to show a mode of 770,
making it appear that all users in user A's group now had full access
to /home/A/asdf, however, user B still only had read acces. Madness.
Anywho, I finally found that the above (whacky as it is) appears to
be "posixly on purpose" and explained in acl(5):
If the ACL has an ACL_MASK entry, the group permissions correspond
to the permissions of the ACL_MASK entry.
Signed-off-by: Mike Marshall <hubcap@omnibond.com>
|