[ Ok, last overview of this thing. ]
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 01:00:42AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > > > if ((current->fsuid != inode->i_uid) && !capable(CAP_FOWNER))
> > > >
> > > > test is a rather
[ Ok, last overview of this thing. ]
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Al Viro wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 01:00:42AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
if ((current-fsuid != inode-i_uid) !capable(CAP_FOWNER))
test is a rather common test, and in
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 03:24:14AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > Anwyay, so I'm thinking of adding:
> > >
> > > struct inode;
> > >
> > > int is_not_owner(struct inode *)
> >
> > ^static inline
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 03:24:14AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > [...]
> > Anwyay, so I'm thinking of adding:
> >
> > struct inode;
> >
> > int is_not_owner(struct inode *)
>
> ^static inline ^inode
>
> of course.
> > {
> >
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> [...]
> Anwyay, so I'm thinking of adding:
>
> struct inode;
>
> int is_not_owner(struct inode *)
^static inline ^inode
of course.
> {
> return ((current->fsuid != inode->i_uid) && !capable(CAP_FOWNER));
> }
>
> to
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 01:00:42AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > > if ((current->fsuid != inode->i_uid) && !capable(CAP_FOWNER))
> > >
> > > test is a rather common test, and in fact, arguably, every time you see
> > > one part of it, you should probably
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 01:00:42AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > if ((current->fsuid != inode->i_uid) && !capable(CAP_FOWNER))
> >
> > test is a rather common test, and in fact, arguably, every time you see
> > one part of it, you should probably see the other. Would it make sense to
> >
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> >
> > [PATCH] utime(s): Honour CAP_FOWNER when times==NULL
> >
> > do_utimes() does not honour CAP_FOWNER when times==NULL.
> > Trivial and obvious
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
>
> [PATCH] utime(s): Honour CAP_FOWNER when times==NULL
>
> do_utimes() does not honour CAP_FOWNER when times==NULL.
> Trivial and obvious one-line fix.
Ahh, ok. Is this old, or was it introduced recently (I'm looking at my
recent chan
[PATCH] utime(s): Honour CAP_FOWNER when times==NULL
do_utimes() does not honour CAP_FOWNER when times==NULL.
Trivial and obvious one-line fix.
Signed-off-by: Satyam Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
BTW this bug was hidden by the fact that we call vfs_permission() from the
code
[PATCH] utime(s): Honour CAP_FOWNER when times==NULL
do_utimes() does not honour CAP_FOWNER when times==NULL.
Trivial and obvious one-line fix.
Signed-off-by: Satyam Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
BTW this bug was hidden by the fact that we call vfs_permission() from the
code below
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
[PATCH] utime(s): Honour CAP_FOWNER when times==NULL
do_utimes() does not honour CAP_FOWNER when times==NULL.
Trivial and obvious one-line fix.
Ahh, ok. Is this old, or was it introduced recently (I'm looking at my
recent change to that area
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
[PATCH] utime(s): Honour CAP_FOWNER when times==NULL
do_utimes() does not honour CAP_FOWNER when times==NULL.
Trivial and obvious one-line fix.
Ahh, ok. Is this old, or was it introduced
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 01:00:42AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
if ((current-fsuid != inode-i_uid) !capable(CAP_FOWNER))
test is a rather common test, and in fact, arguably, every time you see
one part of it, you should probably see the other. Would it make sense to
make a helper
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Al Viro wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 01:00:42AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
if ((current-fsuid != inode-i_uid) !capable(CAP_FOWNER))
test is a rather common test, and in fact, arguably, every time you see
one part of it, you should probably see the other.
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
[...]
Anwyay, so I'm thinking of adding:
struct inode;
int is_not_owner(struct inode *)
^static inline ^inode
of course.
{
return ((current-fsuid != inode-i_uid) !capable(CAP_FOWNER));
}
to linux/capability.h
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 03:24:14AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
[...]
Anwyay, so I'm thinking of adding:
struct inode;
int is_not_owner(struct inode *)
^static inline ^inode
of course.
{
return
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Al Viro wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 03:24:14AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
[...]
Anwyay, so I'm thinking of adding:
struct inode;
int is_not_owner(struct inode *)
^static inline ^inode
18 matches
Mail list logo
