From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1D8EC432C0 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 19:23:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CCB12071E for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 19:23:09 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1574796189; bh=Vj2uHwlDKyIrkv0KKfpYe4WvrV+BzrKtnlSQJ5uDBiI=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:List-ID:From; b=ERKj+RRRtwqn3v/0VQzoc66OdDZkEMx2NfICoZkmkRjjXj8WmpfvBBxxK7cSCjkaK VaTh68+s0lpoeMiKk2v9bE+IoERRV1MQe1GSlmYugGuNQLwXy+oPJn4m08DXRibIAH i7l74KmmcTeVDbFfStCyiuHoGIYDvHPcBfCajzcM= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726036AbfKZTXI (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:23:08 -0500 Received: from mail-lj1-f193.google.com ([209.85.208.193]:40821 "EHLO mail-lj1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725970AbfKZTXI (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:23:08 -0500 Received: by mail-lj1-f193.google.com with SMTP id s22so2557247ljs.7 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 11:23:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux-foundation.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=gVU8aUvCwunnwvZoc9ZhH3ujI7aR4VD5kE4pYV1Vkas=; b=EgkRn4Q7NHQ5QIKE0czhFgPREUU/56yr7pVF4OoQfwq+lrhdqpgMhqNobcCo9dDvJA Mf/9k3DSG/qijMMbyy6EjYTwCX7FjQ0RQAqPLLnbcFmIdtnuq7K8zYk98PhbYlX4EwGy UpB2mwuSWKZUITnmLFz/zHqMols2HefF4AAs8= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=gVU8aUvCwunnwvZoc9ZhH3ujI7aR4VD5kE4pYV1Vkas=; b=LxE9R4Nt/ecGen7brO23nAYwlV3pY9h1BM2BD07zYBKVTsTZgf5XEvOasxElY/L1CT 3DksMtG0BlIwYg6pDjrKb61fAc+9nvynmw0Qz6RH6+FMzMgZ++Z3AvQ3LLACqQqmvE66 5pVSxMQZglKJTOYQJdUN/HP+73Bf4ycQV9AppAbc6g1apQ4CcJbuaJ+tSn010AV13Qpd M9HReLsymK/HbRQavpQ922yCfFmd+kOtR10DmBUcpSEb0CJt+xy6OT3vuu7sZVNVdmLN 5nEgh0oljDAuOwbfslUQcCtGbS27VkHvrwQFNio56Kn/OJ6qbPm2FTX+pqcq6xLXJnUt jvcQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV9w4ZxGkjLYL7aN4qBJk3xEw7aIqhjcMLxgRuXAPx+4OWIJFhI EMAjnFcd1ScApjqvMhZ7DcWJ7cNH9mM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzaOIJu/BnU8/pRkNWrdx7wODLyb1sPGst3k/8B38gpBFJ9R+0jrslnDjucxrcF+UNZT/3mjQ== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:7c10:: with SMTP id x16mr28065531ljc.120.1574796183101; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 11:23:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lf1-f44.google.com (mail-lf1-f44.google.com. [209.85.167.44]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i8sm5684696lfl.80.2019.11.26.11.23.01 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 26 Nov 2019 11:23:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf1-f44.google.com with SMTP id l14so15034588lfh.10 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 11:23:01 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a19:4bd4:: with SMTP id y203mr23590528lfa.61.1574796181641; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 11:23:01 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191126185018.8283-1-hubcap@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <20191126185018.8283-1-hubcap@kernel.org> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 11:22:45 -0800 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] orangefs: posix open permission checking... To: hubcap@kernel.org Cc: Mike Marshall , linux-fsdevel Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 10:50 AM wrote: > > Here's another version that is hopefully closer to > usable... This looks like it should work. I don't know what side effects that "new_op->upcall.uid = 0;" will have on the server side, and it still looks a bit hacky to me, but at least it doesn't have the obvious problems on the client side. Arguably, if you trust the client, you might as well just *always* do that upcall.uid clearing. And if you don't trust the client, then you'd have to do some NFS-like root squash anyway, at which point the uid clearing will actually remove permissions and break this situation again. So I do think this shows a deeper issue still, but at least it is an understandable workaround for a non-posix filesystem. Linus