Received: by 2002:a25:4158:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id o85csp2524918yba; Fri, 10 May 2019 13:12:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwAQ32H0DUsXtLXzK9DpUvhgIujbm2Efs6oUsR15SCD+0xkIwBKdXJFsuziOU75wcCsw2f8 X-Received: by 2002:a65:60c7:: with SMTP id r7mr15596177pgv.22.1557519141100; Fri, 10 May 2019 13:12:21 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1557519141; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=C7tIKFVvn7zcQ0kqKXFt5j+PfVLJNe9XGOoPU+oPdKG8KjTRsazP4LoOGw365i4XFD u14TC51Nzyag5r2IschJ3KxSui3ycWJ/9oB9pJdG5csFM+QySmrrNNHSwJDzsERF2CYK Iuq1jG/bs/WdDaJ4hN0ZceGBPShuRgq4ANM/tnvdC7LBP00BgYOJzpFq2+qFEzt9zg0S 9VnyRDG2IT26B1hpts6sWHrjULDJL3BprXFsLzhVLd5WusprrQBnzNI03C2nJRJ48AD/ q960CSL8+mHt7eZsoPcrpHA2DG/ny7VjTJsTdMEl78DakZxb4b2g0Exq3+qRhuMt9KX6 nZ0A== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date; bh=c9nA+bLcSByDvcKsrLfKPo/hPfa7xPdWN9TcC2MARJo=; b=nogF7X1ed0CmaFC5vuw7PvsWMxG9tOX51w08NPXbGVH30vhCKYElHahKQmL/Gr3L4x npm6e9PnEDc5HIikSb/PoK9X6yTfeowVy68xNG4a7RfJS9ypucc7g2YYPrRuWwKYHn2a PALk9h6KwnRm3oMOHax2+b+cpIP9QUu0lJraGVV7zpqlsXdZXGTuvFe2rbIcwL2VzFWH ytVjhHmoYyONabItQKTmlf5rVKIh+dsQRzIXKZaTcOQFdny8QB9HAcG0eXTv+I1XOg/G bmmW68WPetMQ2BuVNg753eDfkK0ofNt19edZK4b+gSeMS8voy4pFH3L673Fp0p8JPmGu BO1Q== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id k3si9649970pfj.67.2019.05.10.13.11.53; Fri, 10 May 2019 13:12:21 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727670AbfEJUJm (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 10 May 2019 16:09:42 -0400 Received: from fieldses.org ([173.255.197.46]:55510 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727657AbfEJUJm (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 May 2019 16:09:42 -0400 Received: by fieldses.org (Postfix, from userid 2815) id 19F5C63E; Fri, 10 May 2019 16:09:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 16:09:41 -0400 From: "J. Bruce Fields" To: NeilBrown Cc: Andreas Gruenbacher , Miklos Szeredi , Andreas =?utf-8?Q?Gr=C3=BCnbacher?= , Patrick Plagwitz , "linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org" , Linux NFS list , Linux FS-devel Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] overlayfs: ignore empty NFSv4 ACLs in ext4 upperdir Message-ID: <20190510200941.GB5349@fieldses.org> References: <266c571f-e4e2-7c61-5ee2-8ece0c2d06e9@web.de> <20161206185806.GC31197@fieldses.org> <87bm0l4nra.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <20190503153531.GJ12608@fieldses.org> <87woj3157p.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87woj3157p.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 10:24:58AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > Interesting perspective .... though doesn't NFSv4 explicitly allow > client-side ACL enforcement in the case of delegations? Not really. What you're probably thinking of is the single ACE that the server can return on granting a delegation, that tells the client it can skip the ACCESS check for users matching that ACE. It's unclear how useful that is. It's currently unused by the Linux client and server. > Not sure how relevant that is.... > > It seems to me we have two options: > 1/ declare the NFSv4 doesn't work as a lower layer for overlayfs and > recommend people use NFSv3, or > 2/ Modify overlayfs to work with NFSv4 by ignoring nfsv4 ACLs either > 2a/ always - and ignore all other acls and probably all system. xattrs, > or > 2b/ based on a mount option that might be > 2bi/ general "noacl" or might be > 2bii/ explicit "noxattr=system.nfs4acl" > > I think that continuing to discuss the miniature of the options isn't > going to help. No solution is perfect - we just need to clearly > document the implications of whatever we come up with. > > I lean towards 2a, but I be happy with with any '2' and '1' won't kill > me. I guess I'd also lean towards 2a. I don't think it applies to posix acls, as overlayfs is capable of copying those up and evaluating them on its own. --b. > > Do we have a vote? Or does someone make an executive decision?? > > NeilBrown