Nikolaus Rath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jean-Pierre André <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> This code which checks whether the user has enough rights makes an
>>> impression of re-implementing one more time the general linux logic
>>> for permission checking, and it doesn't feel right. Isn't it possible
>>> in FUSE to use the system procedure for permission checking as the
>>> default? Why should at all this ntfs-3g code care about whether it
>>> should check for CAP_FOWNER or for processuid==0 or for something else
>>> (when a new version of linux with different logic is out) -- can't it
>>> just tell the kernel all the owner and permission information and let
>>> it decide whether the operation is allowed?
>>>
>>
>> I agree, and I have already suggested the same on the
>> fuse list. Fuse could indeed check the rights based on
>> the file owner and permissions, the driver being only
>> responsible for storing and retrieving the attributes.
>
> It does so, you just have to use the default_permissions mount option.
>
>
> Best,
>
> -Nikolaus
Just to be sure, if I specify "default_permissions" then fuse
garanties that it will never callback an operation that isn't allowed?
Because Bernd and I have been discussing about the right permission
handling in unionfs fuse and it is a nightmare to do right. Problem is
supporting all the groups a pid can be in. Only the kernel knows this.
MfG
Goswin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
ntfs-3g-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ntfs-3g-devel
