From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Jun  8 19:29:10 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16AFD106564A;
	Sun,  8 Jun 2008 19:29:10 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from mckusick@chez.mckusick.com)
Received: from chez.mckusick.com (chez.mckusick.com [64.81.247.49])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB0F58FC19;
	Sun,  8 Jun 2008 19:29:09 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from mckusick@chez.mckusick.com)
Received: from chez.mckusick.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by chez.mckusick.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m58J4Qg7033415;
	Sun, 8 Jun 2008 12:04:26 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from mckusick@chez.mckusick.com)
Message-Id: <200806081904.m58J4Qg7033415@chez.mckusick.com>
To: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au>
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 12:04:26 -0700
From: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@chez.mckusick.com>
Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Ighighi <ighighi@gmail.com>,
	Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, bug-followup@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: kern/122047: [ext2fs] incorrect handling of UF_IMMUTABLE /
	UF_APPEND, flag on EXT2FS (maybe others) 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 19:29:10 -0000

Bruce,

I concur with your analysis of what should be done here. Disallow
manipulation of UF_ flags in ext2 and restrict SF_ flags to appropriate
priviledge as is done in both FreeBSD and Linux. The only debate is
whether to enforce FreeBSD securelevel for ext2 which I would be
inclined to do.

	Kirk McKusick