Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 15 Jun 2020 10:50:35 -0400
From:   "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@redhat.com>
To:     Elliott Mitchell <ehem+debian@m5p.com>
Cc:     Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org>, 962254@bugs.debian.org,
        linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, agruenba@redhat.com
Subject: Re: Umask ignored when mounting NFSv4.2 share of an exported ZFS
 (with acltype=off) (was: Re: Bug#962254: NFS(v4) broken at 4.19.118-2)
Message-ID: <20200615145035.GA214986@pick.fieldses.org>
References: <20200605051607.GA34405@mattapan.m5p.com>
 <20200605064426.GA1538868@eldamar.local>
 <20200605051607.GA34405@mattapan.m5p.com>
 <20200605174349.GA40135@mattapan.m5p.com>
 <20200605183631.GA1720057@eldamar.local>
 <20200611223711.GA37917@mattapan.m5p.com>
 <20200613125431.GA349352@eldamar.local>
 <20200613184527.GA54221@mattapan.m5p.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200613184527.GA54221@mattapan.m5p.com>
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 11:45:27AM -0700, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> I disagree with this assessment.  All of the reporters have been using
> ZFS, but this could indicate an absence of testers using other
> filesystems.  We need someone with a NFS server which has a 4.15+ kernel
> and uses a different filesystem which supports ACLs.

Honestly I don't think I currently have a regression test for this so
it's possible I could have missed something upstream.  I haven't seen
any reports, though....

ZFS's ACL implementation is very different from any in-tree
filesystem's, and given limited time, a filesystem with no prospect of
going upstream isn't going to get much attention, so, yes, I'd need to
see a reproducer on xfs or ext4 or something.

--b.