Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-f179.google.com ([209.85.214.179]:36019 "EHLO mail-ob0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932170AbbE1X3j (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2015 19:29:39 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <39cf890265e2a906a1cf41d6949b5be69903a064.1429868795.git.agruenba@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 01:29:38 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC v3 42/45] nfs: Add richacl support From: =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_Gr=C3=BCnbacher?= To: Trond Myklebust Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux FS-devel Mailing List , Linux NFS Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 2015-05-29 1:06 GMT+02:00 Trond Myklebust : > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Andreas Gruenbacher > wrote: >> Changes nfs to support the "system.richacl" xattr instead of "system.nfs4_acl". >> > > NACK. > > You may declare a userspace syscall ABI that is more than 10 years old > to be deprecated, but you are not allowed to remove it. Okay, we can have "system.nfs4_acl" as well, it's just extra code. > Furthermore, your entire premise of using the mode bits and the acl at > the same time is flawed; you are at best trying to set up a private > protocol to pass your mask info. According to RFC7530, Section > 6.4.1.3, if you try to send the mode bits and ACL in the same SETATTR, > then the result should be to apply the mode first, then override all > the lower mode bits (i.e. everything except the suid, sgid and ) with > the ACL... What do you mean? I'm happy with the behavior described in Section 6.4.1.3 of RFC 7530; I'm not using the mode bits and the acl at the same time. What makes you think otherwise? Thanks, Andreas