On btrfs, do the following ------------------ # su user1 # cd btrfs-part/ # touch aaa # getfacl aaa # file: aaa # owner: user1 # group: user1 user::rw- group::rw- other::r-- # su user2 # cd btrfs-part/ # setfacl -m u::rwx aaa # getfacl aaa # file: aaa # owner: user1 # group: user1 user::rwx <- successed to setfacl group::rw- other::r-- ------------------ but we should prohibit it that user2 changing user1''s acl. In fact, on ext3 and other fs, a message occurs: setfacl: aaa: Operation not permitted This patch fixed it. Signed-off-by: Shi Weihua <shiwh@cn.fujitsu.com> --- diff --git a/fs/btrfs/acl.c b/fs/btrfs/acl.c index da3133c..12d7be8 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/acl.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/acl.c @@ -159,6 +159,9 @@ static int btrfs_xattr_set_acl(struct inode *inode, int type, int ret; struct posix_acl *acl = NULL; + if (!is_owner_or_cap(inode)) + return -EPERM; + if (value) { acl = posix_acl_from_xattr(value, size); if (acl == NULL) {
Christoph Hellwig
2010-May-20 08:33 UTC
Re: [PATCH] btrfs: should add a permission check for setfacl
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 08:50:32AM +0800, Shi Weihua wrote:> On btrfs, do the following > ------------------ > # su user1 > # cd btrfs-part/ > # touch aaa > # getfacl aaa > # file: aaa > # owner: user1 > # group: user1 > user::rw- > group::rw- > other::r-- > # su user2 > # cd btrfs-part/ > # setfacl -m u::rwx aaa > # getfacl aaa > # file: aaa > # owner: user1 > # group: user1 > user::rwx <- successed to setfacl > group::rw- > other::r-- > ------------------ > but we should prohibit it that user2 changing user1''s acl. > In fact, on ext3 and other fs, a message occurs: > setfacl: aaa: Operation not permittedCan you add this as a new testcase to xfstests so that we can easiy check for regressions and future filesystems implementing this correctly?
Shi Weihua
2010-May-24 06:38 UTC
Re: [PATCH] btrfs: should add a permission check for setfacl
cc xfstests ml at 2010-5-20 16:33, Christoph Hellwig wrote:> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 08:50:32AM +0800, Shi Weihua wrote: >> On btrfs, do the following >> ------------------ >> # su user1 >> # cd btrfs-part/ >> # touch aaa >> # getfacl aaa >> # file: aaa >> # owner: user1 >> # group: user1 >> user::rw- >> group::rw- >> other::r-- >> # su user2 >> # cd btrfs-part/ >> # setfacl -m u::rwx aaa >> # getfacl aaa >> # file: aaa >> # owner: user1 >> # group: user1 >> user::rwx <- successed to setfacl >> group::rw- >> other::r-- >> ------------------ >> but we should prohibit it that user2 changing user1''s acl. >> In fact, on ext3 and other fs, a message occurs: >> setfacl: aaa: Operation not permitted > > Can you add this as a new testcase to xfstests so that we can easiy > check for regressions and future filesystems implementing this > correctly? >did it. maybe it should be merged into 051 or 099. Signed-off-by: Shi Weihua <shiwh@cn.fujitsu.com> --- diff -urpN xfstests.orig.229/230 xfstests/230 --- xfstests.orig.229/230 1970-01-01 08:00:00.000000000 +0800 +++ xfstests/230 2010-05-28 14:27:02.000000000 +0800 @@ -0,0 +1,80 @@ +#! /bin/bash +# FS QA Test No. 230 +# +# Check user B can setfacl a file which belongs to user A +# See also http://marc.info/?l=linux-btrfs&m=127434445620298&w=2 +# +#----------------------------------------------------------------------- +# Copyright (c) 2010 FUJITSU LIMITED. All Rights Reserved. +# +# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or +# modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as +# published by the Free Software Foundation. +# +# This program is distributed in the hope that it would be useful, +# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of +# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the +# GNU General Public License for more details. +# +# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License +# along with this program; if not, write the Free Software Foundation, +# Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA +# +#----------------------------------------------------------------------- +# +# creator +owner=shiwh@cn.fujitsu.com + +seq=`basename $0` +echo "QA output created by $seq" + +here=`pwd` +tmp=/tmp/$$ +runas=$here/src/runas +status=1 # FAILure is the default! +trap "_cleanup; exit \$status" 0 1 2 3 15 + +# get standard environment, filters and checks +. ./common.rc +. ./common.filter +. ./common.attr + +_cleanup() +{ + cd / + rm -f $tmp.* + [ -n "$testdir" ] && rm -rf $testdir/$seq.dir1 + _cleanup_testdir +} + +# real QA test starts here +_supported_fs generic +# only Linux supports fallocate +_supported_os Linux + +[ -x $runas ] || _notrun "$runas executable not found" + +rm -f $seq.full + +_setup_testdir + +_need_to_be_root +_acl_setup_ids +_require_acls + +# get dir +cd $testdir +rm -rf $seq.dir1 +mkdir $seq.dir1 +cd $seq.dir1 + +touch file1 +chown $acl1.$acl1 file1 + +echo "Expect to FAIL" +$runas -u $acl2 -g $acl2 -- `which setfacl` -m u::rwx file1 2>&1 + +echo "Test over." +# success, all done +status=0 +exit diff -urpN xfstests.orig.229/230.out xfstests/230.out --- xfstests.orig.229/230.out 1970-01-01 08:00:00.000000000 +0800 +++ xfstests/230.out 2010-05-28 14:27:05.000000000 +0800 @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +QA output created by 230 +Expect to FAIL +setfacl: file1: Operation not permitted +Test over. diff -urpN xfstests.orig.229/group xfstests/group --- xfstests.orig.229/group 2010-05-28 11:29:31.000000000 +0800 +++ xfstests/group 2010-05-28 14:26:48.000000000 +0800 @@ -343,3 +343,4 @@ deprecated 227 auto fsr 228 rw auto prealloc quick 229 auto +230 acl auto -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Christoph Hellwig
2010-May-27 19:19 UTC
Re: [PATCH] btrfs: should add a permission check for setfacl
Thanks! I''ve commit both patches. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Possibly Parallel Threads
- [LLVMdev] alias analysis results
- [LLVMdev] alias analysis results
- Can't validate USER@DOMAIN in Runas
- Is it possible to have two endpoints to the same IP address where one uses IP based authentication and the other requires asterisk to register to that system?
- [LLVMdev] alias analysis results