On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:24:49AM +0200, Andreas Grünbacher wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> 2015-05-15 22:51 GMT+02:00 J. Bruce Fields <bfie...@fieldses.org>:
> > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 01:04:16PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > This comment is a little confusing:
> >
> >> + * This function does not consider the masks in @acl.
> >
> > Given that we do this later:
> >
> >> + if (acl->a_flags & RICHACL_MASKED) {
> >> + owner.allowed &= acl->a_owner_mask;
> >> + group.allowed &= acl->a_group_mask;
> >> + everyone.allowed &= acl->a_other_mask;
> >> + }
>
> Indeed, the comment seems to be a left-over from a previous version, sorry.
>
> > I think the difference is that here you're checking that the end result
> > after applying masks is mode-equivalent, whereas in riachacl_equiv_mode
> > [...] you're also checking whether the masks themselves are
> > mode-equivalent?
>
> Yes.
>
> >Is that the right thing to do?
>
> This patch and its consequences probably weren't thought through well enough
> initially. I meanwhile think that it doesn't matter if the masks themselves
> are
> mode-equivalent and that we can drop this check.
OK, thanks, that would simplify things.
--b.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
