Return-Path: Received: from fieldses.org ([173.255.197.46]:53019 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753137AbbE0PG4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 May 2015 11:06:56 -0400 Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 11:06:56 -0400 From: "J. Bruce Fields" To: Andreas =?utf-8?Q?Gr=C3=BCnbacher?= Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC v3 19/45] richacl: Also recognize nontrivial mode-equivalent acls Message-ID: <20150527150656.GB21309@fieldses.org> References: <5e9ee3b123b3d648487cd18dc906b6a2cd23085b.1429868795.git.agruenba@redhat.com> <20150515205140.GD29627@fieldses.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:24:49AM +0200, Andreas Grünbacher wrote: > Bruce, > > 2015-05-15 22:51 GMT+02:00 J. Bruce Fields : > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 01:04:16PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > > This comment is a little confusing: > > > >> + * This function does not consider the masks in @acl. > > > > Given that we do this later: > > > >> + if (acl->a_flags & RICHACL_MASKED) { > >> + owner.allowed &= acl->a_owner_mask; > >> + group.allowed &= acl->a_group_mask; > >> + everyone.allowed &= acl->a_other_mask; > >> + } > > Indeed, the comment seems to be a left-over from a previous version, sorry. > > > I think the difference is that here you're checking that the end result > > after applying masks is mode-equivalent, whereas in riachacl_equiv_mode > > [...] you're also checking whether the masks themselves are > > mode-equivalent? > > Yes. > > >Is that the right thing to do? > > This patch and its consequences probably weren't thought through well enough > initially. I meanwhile think that it doesn't matter if the masks themselves are > mode-equivalent and that we can drop this check. OK, thanks, that would simplify things. --b.