know if there are others who should be informed.
Comments and suggestions appreciated...
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log fil
ses that to decide whether to return early, and to pass
a (hopefully) appropriate bitmask to fsnotify_change.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/attr.c | 54 +--
include/linux/fs.h |1 +
2 files changed, 36 i
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/hostfs/hostfs_kern.c |2 ++
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/hostfs/hostfs_kern.c b/fs/hostfs/hostfs_kern.c
index c778620..ea75204 100644
--- a/fs/hostfs/hostfs_kern.c
+++ b/fs/hostfs/hostfs_
ill break out-of-tree fs, so a separate flag is
> probably better.
>
In the past I've been told that adding new flags is something of a
"last resort". Since it's not strictly necessary to fix this then
it may be best to avoid that.
That said, if
a little easier if you
> really care.)
Thanks. I debated about how best to split these up. A coworker
mentioned that Andrew had tossed him back a single patch that
touched several mainline filesystems and asked him to break it
up. I took that to mean that the patches should generally be split
out,
gestions. I'll plan to incorporate them in the next
respin of the set.
Thanks,
--
Jeff Layton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 17:15:01 -0700
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 09:54:03 -0400
> Jeff Layton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Apologies for the resend, but the original sending had the date in the
> > email header and
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 22:05:13 +0200 (CEST)
Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Aug 8 2007 09:48, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 09:54:03 -0400
> >> > Jeff Layton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >>
ange a setuid/setgid
file on these filesystems. Still, it should conceivably catch most if
not all offenders. Would that be sufficient to take care of everyone's
concerns?
--
Jeff Layton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
Thi
convert to the "new" scheme,
so they can avoid this second setattr call.
If this idea seems sound then I'll start the grunt work to fix up the
in-tree filesystems so that they don't need the second setattr call.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
commit 52
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 08:01:34 -0400
Jeff Layton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 03:57:39 +0100
> Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I like the idea of checking ia_valid after return a lot. But instead of
> > going BUG()
broken out individually
again if needed.
Comments and suggestions appreciated. Also, please let me know if
I've missed any filesystems that need to be converted...
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
T
ld help us to catch filesystems that
don't handle these bits correctly without breaking them outright.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/attr.c | 91 ---
include/linux/fs.h |1 +
2 files changed, 72 ins
This should fix all of the filesystems in the mainline kernels to handle
ATTR_KILL_SUID and ATTR_KILL_SGID correctly. For most of them, this is
just a matter of making sure that they call generic_attrkill early in
the setattr inode op.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
14 matches
Mail list logo
