Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-f181.google.com ([209.85.223.181]:35453 "EHLO mail-io0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752585AbbJFUzV (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Oct 2015 16:55:21 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1443391772-10171-1-git-send-email-agruenba@redhat.com> <20151004062313.GA20212@infradead.org> <5612C85C.2060407@gmail.com> <20151006094935.GA14144@infradead.org> From: Steve French Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 15:55:01 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/41] Richacls To: Andreas Dilger Cc: Andreas Gruenbacher , Christoph Hellwig , Austin S Hemmelgarn , Alexander Viro , "Theodore Ts'o" , "J. Bruce Fields" , Jeff Layton , Trond Myklebust , Anna Schumaker , linux-ext4 , LKML , linux-fsdevel , "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" , Linux API Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On Oct 6, 2015, at 7:12 AM, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: >> >> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 02:58:36PM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: >>>> I think the point is that a new VFS feature that is easy to integrate in >>>> multiple filesystems should have support for those filesystems. A decade >>>> ago, just having ext* support would probably have been fine, but these days, >>>> XFS, BTRFS, and F2FS are used just as much (if not more) on production >>>> systems as ext4, and having support for them right from the start would >>>> significantly help with adoption of richacls. >>> >>> That's one reason. The other is that actually wiring it up for more >>> than a single consumer shows its actually reasonable generic. >> >> The filesystem interface now is the same as for POSIX ACLs, used by a >> dozen or so filesystems already. >> >>> I don't want to end up with a situration like Posix ACLs again where >>> different file systems using different on disk formats again. >> >> Any file system could choose a different on-disk format than the one >> that ext4 currently uses, but I don't see a reason why any should. >> Apart from uid / gid mappings that is the same as the user-space xattr >> format. Network file systems like NFSv4 and CIFS with their predefined >> over-the-wire formats obviously are another story. > > And any disk filesystems that have their own non-POSIX ACLs, such as HFS, NTFS, ZFS would presumably also need to map the in-kernel Richacl format to their on-disk format. Will be interesting to see whether in the long run can have some common code in NTFS, CIFS/SMB3 (and even NFSv4.x) ACL parsing since their formats are quite closely related -- Thanks, Steve