On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 12:00:55PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007, Al Viro wrote:
> >
> > I think that we need to go the other way round - gather nameidata
> > ->nd and ->dentry into struct path and pass pointer to that instead...
>
> Yeah, that sounds fine too.
>
> > But
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007, Al Viro wrote:
>
> I think that we need to go the other way round - gather nameidata
> ->nd and ->dentry into struct path and pass pointer to that instead...
Yeah, that sounds fine too.
> But that's .23-rc1 fodder, if not .23-rc2 one (we might want to
> do -rc2 with just tha
On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 11:38:20AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I do think that it would be even nicer to just have a function that fills
> in the "struct nameidata" from the dfd. I think we should be able to: the
> "struct file" really does have the "f_path" thing with both dentry and mnt
> i
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > notify_change() does *not* do permission checks for
> > ATTR_CTIME/MTIME/ATIME.
>
> Then I don't understand
>
> /* Check for setting the inode time. */
>
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> This would seem to be the minimal change, and I think it's right.
Side note: I considered just changing do_utimes() to use
ATIME_SET/MTIME_SET instead, which would simplify the logic a lot..
But it turns out that the semantics for A/MTIME_SET is t
On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 11:30:15AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> - non-owners can set it only when they have write permissions, and if it
>was a file descriptor, the only way for us to know that they have write
>permissions is if it's opened writably, which is hopefully equivalent
>
On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 11:24:53AM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > notify_change() does *not* do permission checks for
> > ATTR_CTIME/MTIME/ATIME.
>
> Then I don't understand
>
> /* Check for setting the inode
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> No.
>
> notify_change() does *not* do permission checks for
> ATTR_CTIME/MTIME/ATIME.
>
> It does them for the "xxx_SET" attributes, but MTIME/ATIME is expected to
> change when other things change, so notify_change() expects that those
> _other
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> notify_change() does *not* do permission checks for
> ATTR_CTIME/MTIME/ATIME.
Then I don't understand
/* Check for setting the inode time. */
if (ia_valid & (ATTR_MTIME_SET | ATTR_ATIME_SET)) {
On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 10:41:46AM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Al Viro wrote:
> > Like hell. At the very least you want it to be opened for write.
> > And even that is dubious, since "process has write access to file"
> > is not quite the sam
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
>
> But the real permissions tests are performed in notify_change. I think
> all this is consistent with how, for instance, fchmod works. The
> additional tests in fchmod which aren't here (IS_RDONLY and IS_APPEND)
> would also apply to the case where
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Al Viro wrote:
> Like hell. At the very least you want it to be opened for write.
> And even that is dubious, since "process has write access to file"
> is not quite the same thing as "somebody had given the process a
> descriptor opened for write".
On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 10:06:43AM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > I tested this further and it turned out that the Linus tree is also
> > affected. So I ran git-bisect, after I found out that version
> > 2.6.21.6 wa
On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 10:06:43AM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > I tested this further and it turned out that the Linus tree is also
> > affected. So I ran git-bisect, after I found out that version
> > 2.6.21.6 wa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> I tested this further and it turned out that the Linus tree is also
> affected. So I ran git-bisect, after I found out that version
> 2.6.21.6 was not affected by this bug.
Try this patch. The vfs_permission test can be s
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>
> I tested this further and it turned out that the Linus tree is also
> affected. So I ran git-bisect, after I found out that version
> 2.6.21.6 was not affected by this bug.
git-bisect is wonderful.
> gentoox2 linux # git bisect bad
> 1c710c896
On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 12:09:11PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 01:20:16AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 07:14:52 +0200 Markus Trippelsdorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > ...
> > > touch src/.depend # to prevent unecessary warnings
> > >
17 matches
Mail list logo
