Return-Path: Received: from e23smtp04.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.146]:49721 "EHLO e23smtp04.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752636Ab0LBLJY (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Dec 2010 06:09:24 -0500 Received: from d23relay03.au.ibm.com (d23relay03.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.245]) by e23smtp04.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id oB2B4K34012777 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 22:04:20 +1100 Received: from d23av03.au.ibm.com (d23av03.au.ibm.com [9.190.234.97]) by d23relay03.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id oB2B9MfS1548408 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 22:09:22 +1100 Received: from d23av03.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av03.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id oB2B9MKr002474 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 2010 22:09:22 +1100 From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" To: "J. Bruce Fields" , Trond Myklebust Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Umask and ACL on NFS Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 16:39:15 +0530 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Hi, POSIX ACL and Richacl want to apply umask on file creation only when we don't have any inheritable ACEs on the parent directory. Currently with nfsv4 code we do check for POSIX ACL in nfs_atomic_lookup, but i don't find where we set the MS_POSIXACL bit for the nfsv4 code. Even if we try to do something like below if (nfs4_server_supports_acls(..)) sb->s_flags |= MS_POSIXACL; I guess we could get it wrong. The above implies we may end up not applying umask for a server supporting ACL even if the parent directory don't have inheritable ACEs. I found a proposal to add umask attribute at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nfsv4/current/msg07159.html http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/74/slides/nfsv4-3.pdf So what is the expected behaviour for NFS. Should we always apply umask (which is what it currently does) irrespective of whether parent directory have inheritable ACEs or not ? -aneesh