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 18:57:20 -0700
From:   Elliott Mitchell <ehem+debian@m5p.com>
To:     "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@redhat.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: <20200616015720.GA81232@mattapan.m5p.com>
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>
 <20200615145035.GA214986@pick.fieldses.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200615145035.GA214986@pick.fieldses.org>
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 10:50:35AM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> 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.

Salvatore managing to reproduce it with ext4 yet all prior reports with
the filesystem used being known was ZFS seems to suggest one of two
things.

First, could be enabling POSIX ACLs has been very strongly pushed by
other filesystems, while ZFS hasn't pushed them as strongly.

Second, could be a substantial majority of users of NFS are using ZFS.

If the former, this simply means an additional test case is needed.  If
the latter, then any testing of NFS which excludes ZFS is going to have
underwhelming coverage.


-- 
(\___(\___(\______          --=> 8-) EHM <=--          ______/)___/)___/)
 \BS (    |         ehem+sigmsg@m5p.com  PGP 87145445         |    )   /
  \_CS\   |  _____  -O #include <stddisclaimer.h> O-   _____  |   /  _/
8A19\___\_|_/58D2 7E3D DDF4 7BA6 <-PGP-> 41D1 B375 37D0 8714\_|_/___/5445