On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Jeremy Allison <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 03:15:29PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 10:57:42AM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: >> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Andreas Gruenbacher >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > Normally, deleting a file requires MAY_WRITE access to the parent >> > > directory. With richacls, a file may be deleted with MAY_DELETE_CHILD >> > > access >> > > to the parent directory or with MAY_DELETE_SELF access to the file. >> > > >> > > To support that, pass the MAY_DELETE_CHILD mask flag to >> > > inode_permission() >> > > when checking for delete access inside a directory, and MAY_DELETE_SELF >> > > when checking for delete access to a file itself. >> > > >> > > The MAY_DELETE_SELF permission overrides the sticky directory check. >> > >> > And MAY_DELETE_SELF seems totally inappropriate to any kind of rename, >> > since from the point of view of the inode we are not doing anything at >> > all. The modifications are all in the parent(s), and that's where the >> > permission checks need to be. >> >> I'm having a hard time finding an authoritative reference here (Samba >> people might be able to help), but my understanding is that Windows >> gives this a meaning something like "may I delete a link to this file". >> >> (And not even "may I delete the *last* link to this file", which might >> also sound more logical.) > > I just did a recent patch here. In Samba we now check for > SEC_DIR_ADD_FILE/SEC_DIR_ADD_SUBDIR on the target directory > (depending on if the object being moved is a file or dir).
And MAY_DELETE_SELF as well, for rename? That's really counterintuitive for me. Thanks, Miklos
