On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 01:02:56PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> Would you be happy with a pair of patches where the first blocks chmod
> of symlinks in chmod_common and the second adds the syscall with
> flags? I think this is a clearly understandable fix, but it does
> eliminate the ability to
From: Rich Felker
> Sent: 10 September 2020 15:24
...
> index 9af548fb841b..570a21f4d81e 100644
> --- a/fs/open.c
> +++ b/fs/open.c
> @@ -610,15 +610,30 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(fchmod, unsigned int, fd, umode_t, mode)
> return err;
> }
>
> -static int do_fchmodat(int dfd, const char __user
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 04:18:28PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:23:37AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
>
> > It was determined (see glibc issue #14578 and commit a492b1e5ef) that,
> > on some filesystems, performing chmod on the link itself produces a
> > change in the inode's
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:23:37AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> POSIX defines fchmodat as having a 4th argument, flags, that can be
> AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW. Support for changing the access mode of symbolic
> links is optional (EOPNOTSUPP allowed if not supported), but this flag
> is important even on
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 05:42:34PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:39:50PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 05:20:59PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:23:37AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > > userspace emulation
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 12:39:50PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 05:20:59PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:23:37AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > userspace emulation done in libc implementations. No change is made to
> > > the underlying
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 05:20:59PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:23:37AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > userspace emulation done in libc implementations. No change is made to
> > the underlying chmod_common(), so it's still possible to attempt
> > changes via procfs,
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 06:16:15PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:23:37AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > POSIX defines fchmodat as having a 4th argument, flags, that can be
> > AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW. Support for changing the access mode of symbolic
> > links is optional
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:23:37AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> userspace emulation done in libc implementations. No change is made to
> the underlying chmod_common(), so it's still possible to attempt
> changes via procfs, if desired.
And that is the goddamn problem. We need to fix that _first_.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:23:37AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> It was determined (see glibc issue #14578 and commit a492b1e5ef) that,
> on some filesystems, performing chmod on the link itself produces a
> change in the inode's access mode, but returns an EOPNOTSUPP error.
Which filesystem types
10 matches
Mail list logo
