> > From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@suse.cz>
quoted text
> > 
> > I'm not sure what this function is trying to achieve, but it's not
> > succeeding: the condition for which it is returning zero is exactly
> > the same as checked by permission(), which results in -EACCES.
> > 
> > So in the end this is equivalent to the default action.
> 
> No, it's not, it allows for HFS+ specific special case to allow the lookup 
> of the resource fork.

Sorry I just don't see how that code would allow anything.  The only
place hfsplus_permission() is called is from permission() in namei.c,
and in that case it _is_ equivalent.  Look:

hfsplus_permission():

	if (S_ISREG(inode->i_mode) && mask & MAY_EXEC && !(inode->i_mode & 0111))
		return 0;

permission():

		retval = inode->i_op->permission(inode, submask, nd);
		if (!retval) {
			/*
			 * Exec permission on a regular file is denied if none
			 * of the execute bits are set.
			 *
			 * This check should be done by the ->permission()
			 * method.
			 */
			if ((mask & MAY_EXEC) && S_ISREG(inode->i_mode) &&
			    !(inode->i_mode & S_IXUGO))
				return -EACCES;

Miklos
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/