On Thu, May 02 2019, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 10:05 AM Andreas Gruenbacher <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 2 May 2019 at 05:57, NeilBrown <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 01 2019, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>> > > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 10:03 PM NeilBrown <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > >> On Tue, Dec 06 2016, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>> > >> > On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 02:18:31PM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
>> > >> >> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Miklos Szeredi <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > >> >> > On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 12:24 AM, Andreas Grünbacher
>> > >> >> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > >> >> >> 2016-12-06 0:19 GMT+01:00 Andreas Grünbacher <[email protected]>:
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> >>> It's not hard to come up with a heuristic that determines if a
>> > >> >> >>> system.nfs4_acl value is equivalent to a file mode, and to ignore the
>> > >> >> >>> attribute in that case. (The file mode is transmitted in its own
>> > >> >> >>> attribute already, so actually converting .) That way, overlayfs could
>> > >> >> >>> still fail copying up files that have an actual ACL. It's still an
>> > >> >> >>> ugly hack ...
>> > >> >> >>
>> > >> >> >> Actually, that kind of heuristic would make sense in the NFS client
>> > >> >> >> which could then hide the "system.nfs4_acl" attribute.
>>
>> I still think the nfs client could make this problem mostly go away by
>> not exposing "system.nfs4_acl" xattrs when the acl is equivalent to
>> the file mode. The richacl patches contain a workable abgorithm for
>> that. The problem would remain for files that have an actual NFS4 ACL,
>> which just cannot be mapped to a file mode or to POSIX ACLs in the
>> general case, as well as for files that have a POSIX ACL. Mapping NFS4
>> ACL that used to be a POSIX ACL back to POSIX ACLs could be achieved
>> in many cases as well, but the code would be quite messy. A better way
>> seems to be to using a filesystem that doesn't support POSIX ACLs in
>> the first place. Unfortunately, xfs doesn't allow turning off POSIX
>> ACLs, for example.
>
> How about mounting NFSv4 with noacl? That should fix this issue, right?
No.
"noacl" only affect NFSv3 (and maybe v2) and it disables use of the
NFSACL side-protocol.
"noacl" has no effect on an NFSv4 mount.
NeilBrown