Return-Path: Received: from mail-ua0-f182.google.com ([209.85.217.182]:34972 "EHLO mail-ua0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753024AbcJ2WKl (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Oct 2016 18:10:41 -0400 Received: by mail-ua0-f182.google.com with SMTP id 12so79765037uas.2 for ; Sat, 29 Oct 2016 15:10:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1477686228-12158-1-git-send-email-bfields@redhat.com> From: Andreas Gruenbacher Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 00:10:39 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] NFSv4.2 umask support To: "J. Bruce Fields" Cc: Linux NFS Mailing List , Trond Myklebust , Anna Schumaker Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 11:38 AM, 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, and > need updating first. Oops, turns out I was confused. The patches do implement the proposed new mode_umask attribute right but call it FATTR4_WORD2_UMASK in the code, which doesn't seem right. Let me follow up with a version that renames the attribute to FATTR4_WORD2_MODE_UMASK. The rest looks fine. Thanks, Andreas