Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-f176.google.com ([209.85.192.176]:37543 "EHLO mail-pf0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751086AbdLIAxM (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Dec 2017 19:53:12 -0500 Received: by mail-pf0-f176.google.com with SMTP id n6so8428504pfa.4 for ; Fri, 08 Dec 2017 16:53:12 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) Subject: Re: Non-root chown, NFSv4 ACLs From: Drew Leske In-Reply-To: <20171207231506.GB7527@fieldses.org> Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 16:53:09 -0800 Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Message-Id: <93573170-DAA6-4CC2-A017-44F4B10F3253@computecanada.ca> References: <20171207213419.GA6147@fieldses.org> <20171207231506.GB7527@fieldses.org> To: "J. Bruce Fields" Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > (In theory knfsd could store the full v4 ACL in an extended attribute > and do its own enforcement on the side--I think Samba can do something > like this. This seems complicated to me and I'd rather add richacl > support to the filesystems, but that effort has stalled.) I=E2=80=99m sorry to hear that, I looked at the Git repository = (https://github.com/andreas-gruenbacher/richacl) and it looked like = things were slowing down, and the richacl site linked to here and there = is 404. Thanks very much for sharing your expertise. Drew. ---- Drew Leske=20 Senior Software Developer D=C3=A9veloppeur de logiciel principal