On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:49:51 -0400
Trond Myklebust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 20:11 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Sorry for not replying to the previsious revisions, but I've been out
> > for on vacation.
> >
> > I can't say I like this version. Now we've got
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 03:49:51PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> Hmm... There has to be an implicit promise here that nobody else will
> ever try to set ATTR_KILL_SUID/ATTR_KILL_SGID and ATTR_MODE at the same
> time. Currently, that assumption is not there:
>
>
> > if (ia_valid &
On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 20:11 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Sorry for not replying to the previsious revisions, but I've been out
> for on vacation.
>
> I can't say I like this version. Now we've got callouts at two rather close
> levels which is not very nice from the interface POV.
Agreed.
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 08:11:14PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> Sorry for not replying to the previsious revisions, but I've been out
> for on vacation.
>
> I can't say I like this version. Now we've got callouts at two rather close
> levels which is not very nice from the interface POV.
Sorry for not replying to the previsious revisions, but I've been out
for on vacation.
I can't say I like this version. Now we've got callouts at two rather close
levels which is not very nice from the interface POV.
Maybe preference is for the first scheme where we simply move interpreation
Sorry for not replying to the previsious revisions, but I've been out
for on vacation.
I can't say I like this version. Now we've got callouts at two rather close
levels which is not very nice from the interface POV.
Maybe preference is for the first scheme where we simply move interpreation
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 08:11:14PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Sorry for not replying to the previsious revisions, but I've been out
for on vacation.
I can't say I like this version. Now we've got callouts at two rather close
levels which is not very nice from the interface POV.
On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 20:11 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Sorry for not replying to the previsious revisions, but I've been out
for on vacation.
I can't say I like this version. Now we've got callouts at two rather close
levels which is not very nice from the interface POV.
Agreed.
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 03:49:51PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
Hmm... There has to be an implicit promise here that nobody else will
ever try to set ATTR_KILL_SUID/ATTR_KILL_SGID and ATTR_MODE at the same
time. Currently, that assumption is not there:
if (ia_valid ATTR_KILL_SGID) {
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:49:51 -0400
Trond Myklebust [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 20:11 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Sorry for not replying to the previsious revisions, but I've been out
for on vacation.
I can't say I like this version. Now we've got callouts at two
When an unprivileged process attempts to modify a file that has the
setuid or setgid bits set, the VFS will attempt to clear these bits. The
VFS will set the ATTR_KILL_SUID or ATTR_KILL_SGID bits in the ia_valid
mask, and then call notify_change to clear these bits and set the mode
accordingly.
When an unprivileged process attempts to modify a file that has the
setuid or setgid bits set, the VFS will attempt to clear these bits. The
VFS will set the ATTR_KILL_SUID or ATTR_KILL_SGID bits in the ia_valid
mask, and then call notify_change to clear these bits and set the mode
accordingly.
12 matches
Mail list logo
