Re: [RFC v7 21/41] richacl: Move everyone@ aces down the acl
From: J. Bruce Fields <hidden>
Date: 2015-09-22 01:52:13
Also in:
linux-cifs, linux-fsdevel, linux-nfs, lkml
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:43:16PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
2015-09-18 21:35 GMT+02:00 J. Bruce Fields [off-list ref]:quoted
On Sat, Sep 05, 2015 at 12:27:16PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:quoted
The POSIX standard puts processes which are not the owner or a member in the owning group or which match any ace other then everyone@ on the other file class. We only know if a process is in the other class after processing the entire acl. Move all everyone@ aces in the acl down in the acl so that at most a single everyone@ allow ace remains at the end. Permissions which are not explicitly allowed are implicitly denied, so an everyone@ deny ace is unneeded. The everyone@ aces can be moved down the acl without changing the permissions that the acl grants. This transformation simplifies the following algorithms, and eventually allows us to turn the final everyone@ allow ace into an entry for the other class. Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <redacted> --- fs/richacl_compat.c | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 65 insertions(+)diff --git a/fs/richacl_compat.c b/fs/richacl_compat.c index 341e429..4f0acf5 100644 --- a/fs/richacl_compat.c +++ b/fs/richacl_compat.c@@ -153,3 +153,68 @@ richace_change_mask(struct richacl_alloc *alloc, struct richace **ace, } return 0; } + +/** + * richacl_move_everyone_aces_down - move everyone@ aces to the end of the acl + * @alloc: acl and number of allocated entries + * + * Move all everyone aces to the end of the acl so that only a single everyone@ + * allow ace remains at the end, and update the mask fields of all aces on the + * way. The last ace of the resulting acl will be an everyone@ allow ace only + * if @acl grants any permissions to @everyone. No @everyone deny aces will + * remain. + * + * This transformation does not alter the permissions that the acl grants. + * Having at most one everyone@ allow ace at the end of the acl helps us in the + * following algorithms. + */ +static int +richacl_move_everyone_aces_down(struct richacl_alloc *alloc) +{ + struct richace *ace; + unsigned int allowed = 0, denied = 0; + + richacl_for_each_entry(ace, alloc->acl) { + if (richace_is_inherit_only(ace)) + continue; + if (richace_is_everyone(ace)) { + if (richace_is_allow(ace)) + allowed |= (ace->e_mask & ~denied); + else if (richace_is_deny(ace)) + denied |= (ace->e_mask & ~allowed); + else + continue; + if (richace_change_mask(alloc, &ace, 0)) + return -1; + } else { + if (richace_is_allow(ace)) { + if (richace_change_mask(alloc, &ace, allowed | + (ace->e_mask & ~denied))) + return -1; + } else if (richace_is_deny(ace)) { + if (richace_change_mask(alloc, &ace, denied | + (ace->e_mask & ~allowed))) + return -1; + } + } + } + if (allowed & ~RICHACE_POSIX_ALWAYS_ALLOWED) { + struct richace *last_ace = ace - 1; + + if (alloc->acl->a_entries && + richace_is_everyone(last_ace) && + richace_is_allow(last_ace) && + richace_is_inherit_only(last_ace) && + last_ace->e_mask == allowed) + last_ace->e_flags &= ~RICHACE_INHERIT_ONLY_ACE;That's a funny special case! Is it even worth it, or could we just live with an extra uninheritable EVERYONE ace in this case?Inheritable everyone@ allow entries at the end of the ACL are not uncommon. This special case prevents the algorithm from splitting such entries into inherit-only and non-inheritable parts.
OK.--b.