From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: POSIX ACL support for NFSV4 (using sideband protocol) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 12:08:45 -0400 Message-ID: <20090903160845.GF8270@fieldses.org> References: <524f69650909021156lf181c17uf800eba7c35a6f45@mail.gmail.com> <20090902202206.GJ17884@fieldses.org> <524f69650909021353o1e055cbema16495c57cb9909b@mail.gmail.com> <4A9F6027.9050807@s3group.cz> <524f69650909030654u7653d410kd5cde25ec223a87@mail.gmail.com> <20090903135516.GB4566@fieldses.org> <524f69650909030835s41e78436p4b67594cf91de639@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Ondrej Valousek , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, nfsv4@linux-nfs.org, Trond Myklebust , ffilzlnx@linux.vnet.ibm.com, jra@samba.org, agruen@suse.de To: Steve French Return-path: Received: from fieldses.org ([174.143.236.118]:36042 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754566AbZICQIp (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Sep 2009 12:08:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: <524f69650909030835s41e78436p4b67594cf91de639-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 10:35:35AM -0500, Steve French wrote: > On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 8:55 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 08:54:06AM -0500, Steve French wrote: > >> if someone were able to convince the linux-fsdevel community to change > >> fs/posix_acls.c > >> (or add an fs/cifs_acls.c) to handle NFSv4/CIFS/NTFS ACL evaluation, and add > >> support to store these richer ACLs on disk for the future (e.g. for > >> btrfs), that would be > >> great - but with no local file system in kernel which can store NFSv4 ACLs and > >> no code to evaluate these ACLs in the VFS and with a NACK from fsdevel when > > > > I don't remember that--do you have a pointer? > > Aneesh mentioned one strongly worded objection (I remember more resistance > from others too) > > http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-fsdevel/2006/6/24/313526 Yes, Christoph's always been vehemently opposed. I share his distaste for NFSv4/NT ACLs, but I agree with Trond that a solid implementation with a demonstrated need from CIFS, NFSv4, NTFS, etc., would be likely to overcome such objections. --b.