On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Chris Mason wrote: > These all look good to me and I'm pulling them in. Great, thanks! > > The last item is a change to SNAP_DESTROY to allow deletion of a > > snapshot when the user owns the subvol's root inode and the parent > > directory permissions are such that we would have allowed an rmdir(2). > > Goffredo Baroncelli posted a similar patch that replicates the rmdir(2) > > semantics completely (except for the empty directory check) by > > duplicating some VFS code. Whether we want weaker semantics, duplicated > > code, or some new EXPORT_SYMBOLS is up to you I think. Note that this > > is distinct from a similar patch (also from Goffredo) that allows > > rmdir(2) to remove an empty subvol; my goal is to allow a non-empty > > subvol to be deleted by a non-root user. As long as I can do that, my > > daemon doesn't have to run as root and I'm a happy camper. :) > > Someone at the storage workshop mentioned that this subvol deletion > trick is slightly stronger than rm -rf, to make it include the same > level of permission checks would require testing all the directories in > the tree for permissions. I think that was me :) > For now, could you please make a mount -o user_subvol_rm_allowed option? > (or something similar with a better name). Sure. Do you have a preference as far as what checks are implemented? My patch implemented a simplified approximation of may_rmdir(); Goffredo's duplicated the vfs checks. I guess I'm leaning toward the latter... Thanks! sage -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
