From: "Aneesh Kumar K. V" Subject: Re: [PATCH -V2 00/16] New ACL format for better NFSv4 acl interoperability Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 20:53:36 +0530 Message-ID: References: <1278096227-16784-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <201007192119.50868.agruen@suse.de> <201007201211.53289.agruen@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: sfrench@us.ibm.com, ffilz@us.ibm.com, adilger@sun.com, sandeen@redhat.com, tytso@mit.edu, bfields@citi.umich.edu, jlayton@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, nfsv4@linux-nfs.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Andreas Gruenbacher Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201007201211.53289.agruen@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:11:53 +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > On Tuesday 20 July 2010 11:31:07 Aneesh Kumar K. V wrote: > > We need to update ACL4_VALID_FLAGS to now consider ACL4_MASKED as a > > valid flag. This is also needed for userspace. > > Good point, I missed that. I updated the patch and will push the change to korg after running some test. > > > On a related note, should we move ACL4_MASKED and ACL4_POSIX_MAPPED to > > be the higher bits ? That would make sure we will be able to accomodate > > new flag value NFSv4 define. > > That makes sense, except that ACL4_POSIX_MAPPED hasn't entered the scene in > the patches posted here, and I'm still not convinced that we'll actually need > it. > The userspace change did result in a different output for the below ex: richacl --set 'flags:a 101:w::deny 101:rw::allow 101:w:a:deny 101:rw:a:allow' f this now gives /mnt/d# richacl --get --numeric f f: flags:a 101:-w-----------::deny 101:rw-----------::allow 101:-w-----------:a:deny 101:rw-----------:a:allow that 'w' in rw::allow is redundant, because we have a deny entry before. -aneesh