Return-Path: Received: from hr2.samba.org ([144.76.82.148]:40102 "EHLO hr2.samba.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754343AbcCNDyw (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Mar 2016 23:54:52 -0400 Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 20:54:24 -0700 From: Jeremy Allison To: Andreas Gruenbacher Cc: Steve French , Christoph Hellwig , Alexander Viro , "J. Bruce Fields" , Linux NFS Mailing List , "Theodore Ts'o" , "linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org" , Linux API , Trond Myklebust , LKML , XFS Developers , Andreas Dilger , linux-fsdevel , Jeff Layton , linux-ext4 , Anna Schumaker Subject: Re: [PATCH v18 00/22] Richacls (Core and Ext4) Message-ID: <20160314035424.GA7131@jeremy-HP> Reply-To: Jeremy Allison References: <1456733847-17982-1-git-send-email-agruenba@redhat.com> <20160311140134.GA14808@infradead.org> <20160311230254.GG2792@jra3> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:02:13AM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Jeremy Allison wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 02:05:16PM -0600, Steve French wrote: > >> Sounds like I need to quickly rework the SMB3 ACL helper functions > >> for cifs.ko > >> > >> Also do you know where is the current version of the corresponding > >> vfs_richacl for > >> Samba which works with the current RichACL format? > > > > I have a patch for a new vfs_richacl somewhere. I remember > > sending it to Andreas for testing... > > Ah, the patch was for testing, not resting ... how could I get that mixed up. :-). > I've applied your patch to the latest master branch, made it compile > again, and fixed a few obvious problems. The results I get with > smbcacls look reasonable now. > > The code is here: > https://github.com/andreas-gruenbacher/samba richacl > > I've used the following smb.conf: > [richacl] > comment = Richacl directory > path = /mnt/ext4 > vfs objects = richacl > writeable = yes > browseable = yes Great ! Once richacls gets into the kernel I'll submit this into the Samba master branch. > Is there a particular reason why you didn't make vfs_richacl a > dynamically loadable module? Probably sheer lazyness :-).