Return-Path: Received: from fieldses.org ([173.255.197.46]:53086 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753591AbcJ2U2v (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Oct 2016 16:28:51 -0400 Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2016 16:28:50 -0400 To: Andreas Gruenbacher Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" , Linux NFS Mailing List , Trond Myklebust , Anna Schumaker Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] NFSv4.2 umask support Message-ID: <20161029202850.GA23842@fieldses.org> References: <1477686228-12158-1-git-send-email-bfields@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: From: bfields@fieldses.org (J. Bruce Fields) Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 11:38:43AM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 10:23 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > From: "J. Bruce Fields" > > > > The following patches allow the umask to be ignored in the presence of > > inheritable NFSv4 ACLs. Otherwise inheritable ACLs can be rendered > > mostly useless whenever the umask masks out group bits. > > > > This solves a problem we've seen complaints about for some time, both > > upstream and from RHEL users. > > > > The new protocol has been discussed in the IETF working group and is > > documented at: > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask-02 > > > > It's unlikely that we'll discover problems requiring an incompatible > > change, so I think we should consider this for 4.10. > > Nope, these patches don't implement draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask-02 yet, They don't? What did I miss? --b.