While looking through the proc code I noticed the standard_permission()
function is essentially the same as vfs_permission(). It appears there
is no need to maintain this code separately. For example, the recent
tweaks in vfs_permission() didn't make it into standard_permission().
If it helps, here is a patch. It is against 2.4.11, but it applies
cleanly 2.4.10-ac11.
thanks,
-chris
--- linux-2.4.11/fs/proc/base.c Fri Jul 20 12:39:56 2001
+++ linux-2.4.11-proc/fs/proc/base.c Wed Oct 10 17:10:25 2001
@@ -184,29 +184,6 @@
/* permission checks */
-static int standard_permission(struct inode *inode, int mask)
-{
- int mode = inode->i_mode;
-
- if ((mask & S_IWOTH) && IS_RDONLY(inode) &&
- (S_ISREG(mode) || S_ISDIR(mode) || S_ISLNK(mode)))
- return -EROFS; /* Nobody gets write access to a read-only fs */
- else if ((mask & S_IWOTH) && IS_IMMUTABLE(inode))
- return -EACCES; /* Nobody gets write access to an immutable file */
- else if (current->fsuid == inode->i_uid)
- mode >>= 6;
- else if (in_group_p(inode->i_gid))
- mode >>= 3;
- if (((mode & mask & S_IRWXO) == mask) || capable(CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE))
- return 0;
- /* read and search access */
- if ((mask == S_IROTH) ||
- (S_ISDIR(mode) && !(mask & ~(S_IROTH | S_IXOTH))))
- if (capable(CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH))
- return 0;
- return -EACCES;
-}
-
static int proc_check_root(struct inode *inode)
{
struct dentry *de, *base, *root;
@@ -249,7 +226,7 @@
static int proc_permission(struct inode *inode, int mask)
{
- if (standard_permission(inode, mask) != 0)
+ if (vfs_permission(inode, mask) != 0)
return -EACCES;
return proc_check_root(inode);
}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 15 2001 - 21:00:36 EST