Return-Path: Received: from e28smtp06.in.ibm.com ([122.248.162.6]:54617 "EHLO e28smtp06.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932181Ab1ACQEa (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jan 2011 11:04:30 -0500 Received: from d28relay05.in.ibm.com (d28relay05.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.62]) by e28smtp06.in.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p03G4SEa005841 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 21:34:28 +0530 Received: from d28av04.in.ibm.com (d28av04.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.66]) by d28relay05.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p03G4Rlf2387990 for ; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 21:34:27 +0530 Received: from d28av04.in.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d28av04.in.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p03G4Q8c020910 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 03:04:27 +1100 From: "Aneesh Kumar K. V" To: Trond Myklebust Cc: bfields@fieldses.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfs: Set MS_POSIXACL always In-Reply-To: References: <1291894514-6524-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1292521792.2912.49.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 21:34:23 +0530 Message-ID: <877hemdldk.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 12:10:38 +0530, "Aneesh Kumar K. V" wrote: > On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 12:49:52 -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 22:45 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K. V wrote: > > > Any update on this ? > > > > > > -aneesh > > > > > > On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 17:05:14 +0530, "Aneesh Kumar K.V" wrote: > > > > We want to skip VFS applying mode for NFS. So set MS_POSIXACL always > > > > and selectively use umask. Ideally we would want to use umask only > > > > when we don't have inheritable ACEs set. But NFS currently don't > > > > allow to send umask to the server. So this is best what we can do > > > > and this is consistent with NFSv3 > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V > > > > --- > > > > fs/nfs/dir.c | 3 +-- > > > > fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 5 +++++ > > > > fs/nfs/super.c | 10 ++++++++++ > > > > 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/nfs/super.c b/fs/nfs/super.c > > > > index 3c04504..e57e670 100644 > > > > --- a/fs/nfs/super.c > > > > +++ b/fs/nfs/super.c > > > > @@ -2508,6 +2513,11 @@ static void nfs4_fill_super(struct super_block *sb) > > > > { > > > > sb->s_time_gran = 1; > > > > sb->s_op = &nfs4_sops; > > > > + /* > > > > + * The VFS shouldn't apply the umask to mode bits. We will do > > > > + * so ourselves when necessary. > > > > + */ > > > > + sb->s_flags |= MS_POSIXACL; > > > > nfs_initialise_sb(sb); > > > > } > > > > Won't this end up possibly turning on ACL checking in > > acl_permission_check()? > > acl_permission_check get called only when we don't define an > inode->permission callback. In case of nfs client we do define > nfs_permission callback. In case we don't define a access NFS proto > callback we are still ok because in that case we want mode based > validation and we do pass check_acl as NULL > Can we get this upstream ? -aneesh