[PATCH 16/16] vfs: return -EOPNOTSUPP for fscaps from vfs_*xattr()
Amir Goldstein
amir73il at gmail.com
Thu Nov 30 06:10:15 UTC 2023
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:51 PM Seth Forshee (DigitalOcean)
<sforshee at kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Now that the new vfs-level interfaces are fully supported and all code
> has been converted to use them, stop permitting use of the top-level vfs
> xattr interfaces for capabilities xattrs. Unlike with ACLs we still need
> to be able to work with fscaps xattrs using lower-level interfaces in a
> handful of places, so only use of the top-level xattr interfaces is
> restricted.
Can you explain why?
Is there an inherent difference between ACLs and fscaps in that respect
or is it just a matter of more work that needs to be done?
>
> Signed-off-by: Seth Forshee (DigitalOcean) <sforshee at kernel.org>
> ---
> fs/xattr.c | 9 +++++++++
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/xattr.c b/fs/xattr.c
> index 372644b15457..4b779779ad8c 100644
> --- a/fs/xattr.c
> +++ b/fs/xattr.c
> @@ -540,6 +540,9 @@ vfs_setxattr(struct mnt_idmap *idmap, struct dentry *dentry,
> const void *orig_value = value;
> int error;
>
> + if (!strcmp(name, XATTR_NAME_CAPS))
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +
It this is really not expected, then it should be an assert and
please use an inline helper like is_posix_acl_xattr():
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(is_fscaps_xattr(name)))
It wouldn't hurt to add those assertions to is_posix_acl_xattr()
cases as well, but that is unrelated to your change.
Thanks,
Amir.
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive
mailing list