Michael Holzheu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > + if (filp->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE) {
> > > + if (!(inode->i_mode & S_IWUGO))
> > > + return -EACCES;
> > > + }
> > > + if (filp->f_mode & FMODE_READ) {
> > > + if (!(inode->i_mode & S_IRUGO))
> > > + return -EACCES;
> > > + }
> >
> > Is the standard VFS permission checking not appropriate?
> >
> > (A comment should be added here).
>
> You mean using .permission in the inode operations
> and using the generic_permission() function?
>
> Currently I do not have own inode operations (and
> I don't want to have them ...)
The VFS-level open() code implements standard permission-checking so I
_think_ you don't need to do anything in here. See how ramfs does it.
ramfs does have an inode_operations, for ->getattr() support. So it can
return a correct number in stat->blocks.
sysfs implements inode_operations, so it can do stuff in ->setattr().
I don't think hypfs needs either of those, so you still shouldn't need a
file_inode_operations.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
