Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932360AbcCKOIL (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:08:11 -0500 Received: from fieldses.org ([173.255.197.46]:54362 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932304AbcCKOH7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:07:59 -0500 Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:07:57 -0500 From: "J. Bruce Fields" To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Andreas Gruenbacher , Alexander Viro , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, "Theodore Ts'o" , linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Trond Myklebust , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, Andreas Dilger , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Layton , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Anna Schumaker Subject: Re: [PATCH v18 00/22] Richacls (Core and Ext4) Message-ID: <20160311140757.GB13178@fieldses.org> References: <1456733847-17982-1-git-send-email-agruenba@redhat.com> <20160311140134.GA14808@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160311140134.GA14808@infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1194 Lines: 31 On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 06:01:34AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 09:17:05AM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > > Al, > > > > could you please make sure you are happy with the current version of the > > richacl patch queue for the next merge window? > > I'm still not happy. > > For one I still see no reason to merge this broken ACL model at all. > It provides our actualy Linux users no benefit at all, while breaking > a lot of assumptions, especially by adding allow and deny ACE at the > same sime. Could you explain what you mean by "adding allow and deny ACE at the same time"? > It also doesn't help with the issue that the main thing it's trying > to be compatible with (Windows) actually uses a fundamentally different > identifier to apply the ACLs to - as long as you're still limited > to users and groups and not guids we'll still have that mapping problem > anyway. Agreed, but, one step at a time? My impression is that the Samba people still consider this a step forward for Linux compatibility. --b. > > But besides that fundamental question on the purpose of it I also > don't think the code is suitable, more in the individual patches.