From owner-freebsd-bugs Mon Oct 7 7:20: 7 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5207837B401 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 07:20:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C63A43E7B for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 07:20:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id g97EK5Co064654 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 07:20:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id g97EK5TT064652; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 07:20:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 07:20:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200210071420.g97EK5TT064652@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Serge van den Boom Subject: Re: kern/39329 '..' at mountpoint is subject to the permissions of the shadowed dir Reply-To: Serge van den Boom Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR kern/39329; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Serge van den Boom To: Lyndon Nerenberg Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kern/39329 '..' at mountpoint is subject to the permissions of the shadowed dir Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 16:16:05 +0200 (CEST) On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > I don't disagree with you. I, too, think the behaviour is a bit strange. > However, it has survived through at least one complete re-implementation > of namei and the filesystems (i.e. BSD), which makes me wonder if there > is a valid reason for the behaviour. I suspect that since the original '..' entry is used to determine where '..' goes to, the 'usual' code would read it in its original context, i.e. the original dir. Using the permissions of the new dir might be less than trivial, which may be the reason it is still as it is. Maybe it was something "to do later". That it had been that way in the earlier implementation of namei and the filesystems might have been more of an excuse than a reason for the later implementor(s). However, this is only speculation. > Kirk McKusick is probably one of the few people who can answer that > question. I take it he was one of the people involved in the implementation of namei and the filesystems currently in use? I think a mail in his direction couldn't hurt. Serge To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message