[lkml]   [2008]   [May]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch 4/8] nfsd: rename MAY_ flags
> > > don't think it does, but I'm interested in the nfsd maintainers'
> > > opinions.
> >
> > This isn't something I've ever had a reason to care about. What are you
> > trying to fix exactly?
> The NFS MAY_ flags operate in the same name and number space and we'd
> easily get collisions when someone adds new MAY_ flags which miklos
> as well as at least two other independent efforts want to do. To sort
> this out we'd either defined the nfsd MAY_ flags in fs.h to make it
> obvious we should not double-allocates bits or names, or use a different
> name and number space for the nfsd flags. The first would be rather
> trivial but also ugly, the seconds sound much better but is a little
> more effort. Just defined NFSD_MAY_ and use it everywhere and do a
> little translation inside nfsd_permission before passing it on to
> permission().

Yeah, I wouldn't mind that. Although I'd still define NFSD_MAY_EXEC,
NFSD_MAY_READ and NFSD_MAY_WRITE to be exactly the same as MAY_EXEC,
etc..., and have the translation actually just mask off the rest of
the bits (as it does currently).

These three constants are very much ingrained in the UNIX tradition,
and it's no accident that the MAY_ flags correspond exactly to the
i_mode bits, which is something often exploited by permission checking


 \ /
  Last update: 2008-05-30 11:11    [W:0.082 / U:1.132 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site