Re: [uml-user] [fuse-devel] [PATCH 01/25] VFS: move attr_kill logic from notify_change into helper function

2007-08-06 Thread Miklos Szeredi
> Separate the handling of the local ia_valid bitmask from the one in > attr->ia_valid. This allows us to hand off the actual handling of the > ATTR_KILL_* flags to the .setattr i_op when one is defined. > > notify_change still needs to process those flags for the local ia_valid > variable, since

Re: [uml-user] [fuse-devel] [PATCH 01/25] VFS: move attr_kill logic from notify_change into helper function

2007-08-06 Thread Miklos Szeredi
> > I agree with this change and fuse will make use of it as well. > > > > Maybe instead of unconditionally moving attr_kill_to_mode() inside > > ->setattr() it could be made conditional based on an inode flag > > similarly to S_NOCMTIME. Advantages: > > > > - no need to modify a lot of in-tree

Re: [uml-user] [fuse-devel] [PATCH 01/25] VFS: move attr_kill logic from notify_change into helper function

2007-08-06 Thread Miklos Szeredi
> > Your patch is changing the API in a very unsafe way, since there will > > be no error or warning on an unconverted fs. And that could lead to > > security holes. > > > > If we would rename the setattr method to setattr_new as well as > > changing it's behavior, that would be fine. But I gues

Re: [uml-user] [fuse-devel] [PATCH 00/25] move handling of setuid/gid bits from VFS into individual setattr functions (RESEND)

2007-08-08 Thread Miklos Szeredi
> >From a purely practical standpoint: it's a concern that all filesytems need > patching to continue to correctly function after this change. There might > be filesystems which you missed, and there are out-of-tree filesystems > which won't be updated. > > And I think the impact upon the out-of-