在 2024/3/20 0:16, Li Zetao 写道:Thanks for the reviews, but this is inconsistent with my understanding.
There are two scenarios where ACL needs to be updated, the first onebtrfs) support it, except xfs.
is when creating the inode, and the second one is in the chmod process.
When creating directories/files/device node/tmpfile, ACLs needs to be
initialized, but symlink do not.Why not support symlink? It looks like many filesystems(eg. ext4, f2fs,
This problem is indeed a bit tricky.Attention, a new inconsistent problem point is imported by acl xattr creation. See https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218309. ; @Richard
Signed-off-by: Li Zetao <lizetao1@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/ubifs/dir.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
fs/ubifs/file.c | 4 ++++
2 files changed, 20 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/ubifs/dir.c b/fs/ubifs/dir.c
index 551148de66cd..dfb6823cc953 100644
--- a/fs/ubifs/dir.c
+++ b/fs/ubifs/dir.c
@@ -316,6 +316,10 @@ static int ubifs_create(struct mnt_idmap *idmap, struct inode *dir,
goto out_fname;
}
+ err = ubifs_init_acl(inode, dir);
+ if (err)
+ goto out_inode;
+
Yes, thanks, I have fixed it in v2 version.err = ubifs_init_security(dir, inode, &dentry->d_name);The whiteout inode is not set acl for rename(WHITEOUT) operation. It looks like many filesystems(eg. ext4, f2fs, btrfs) support it, except xfs. In my opinion, whiteout is a char dev, since char/block device is supported, why not support whiteout?
if (err)
goto out_inode;
@@ -466,6 +470,10 @@ static int ubifs_tmpfile(struct mnt_idmap *idmap, struct inode *dir,
}
ui = ubifs_inode(inode);
+ err = ubifs_init_acl(inode, dir);
+ if (err)
+ goto out_inode;
+
err = ubifs_init_security(dir, inode, &dentry->d_name);
if (err)
goto out_inode;
@@ -1013,6 +1021,10 @@ static int ubifs_mkdir(struct mnt_idmap *idmap, struct inode *dir,
goto out_fname;
}
+ err = ubifs_init_acl(inode, dir);
+ if (err)
+ goto out_inode;
+
err = ubifs_init_security(dir, inode, &dentry->d_name);
if (err)
goto out_inode;
@@ -1108,6 +1120,10 @@ static int ubifs_mknod(struct mnt_idmap *idmap, struct inode *dir,
ui->data = dev;
ui->data_len = devlen;
+ err = ubifs_init_acl(inode, dir);
+ if (err)
+ goto out_inode;
+
err = ubifs_init_security(dir, inode, &dentry->d_name);
if (err)
goto out_inode;
If we support whiteout, we should make sure that the whiteout renameing operation is atomic[1]. But I cannot come up with an idea how to combine whiteout xattr(acl) creation and whiteout file creation into an atomic operation, just like problem mentioned in [2],
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mtd/20211227032246.2886878-6-chengzhihao1@xxxxxxxxxx/
[2] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218309
diff --git a/fs/ubifs/file.c b/fs/ubifs/file.c
index 5029eb3390a5..8f964f8b0f96 100644
--- a/fs/ubifs/file.c
+++ b/fs/ubifs/file.c
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
#include <linux/mount.h>
#include <linux/slab.h>
#include <linux/migrate.h>
+#include <linux/posix_acl.h>
static int read_block(struct inode *inode, void *addr, unsigned int block,
struct ubifs_data_node *dn)
@@ -1298,6 +1299,9 @@ int ubifs_setattr(struct mnt_idmap *idmap, struct dentry *dentry,
else
err = do_setattr(c, inode, attr);
+ if (!err && (attr->ia_valid & ATTR_MODE))
+ err = posix_acl_chmod(idmap, dentry, inode->i_mode);
+
return err;
}