Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.36 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.36;
Date:   Wed, 11 Oct 2023 15:59:22 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To:     Max Kellermann <max.kellermann@ionos.com>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Xiubo Li <xiubli@redhat.com>,
        Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>,
        Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@kernel.org>, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        jfs-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
        Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fs/{posix_acl,ext2,jfs,ceph}: apply umask if ACL
 support is disabled
Message-ID: <20231011135922.4bij3ittlg4ujkd7@quack3>
References: <69dda7be-d7c8-401f-89f3-7a5ca5550e2f@oracle.com>
 <20231009144340.418904-1-max.kellermann@ionos.com>
 <20231010131125.3uyfkqbcetfcqsve@quack3>
 <CAKPOu+-nC2bQTZYL0XTzJL6Tx4Pi1gLfNWCjU2Qz1f_5CbJc1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20231011100541.sfn3prgtmp7hk2oj@quack3>
 <CAKPOu+_xdFALt9sgdd5w66Ab6KTqiy8+Z0Yd3Ss4+92jh8nCwg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20231011120655.ndb7bfasptjym3wl@quack3>
 <CAKPOu+-hLrrpZShHh0o6uc_KMW91suEd0_V_uzp5vMf4NM-8yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKPOu+_0yjg=PrwAR8jKok8WskjdDEJOBtu3uKR_4Qtp8b7H1Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAKPOu+_0yjg=PrwAR8jKok8WskjdDEJOBtu3uKR_4Qtp8b7H1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed 11-10-23 14:27:49, Max Kellermann wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 2:18 PM Max Kellermann <max.kellermann@ionos.com> wrote:
> > But without the other filesystems. I'll resend it with just the
> > posix_acl.h hunk.
> 
> Thinking again, I don't think this is the proper solution. This may
> server as a workaround so those broken filesystems don't suffer from
> this bug, but it's not proper.
> 
> posix_acl_create() is only supposed to appy the umask if the inode
> supports ACLs; if not, the VFS is supposed to do it. But if the
> filesystem pretends to have ACL support but the kernel does not, it's
> really a filesystem bug. Hacking the umask code into
> posix_acl_create() for that inconsistent case doesn't sound right.
> 
> A better workaround would be this patch:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-nfs/patch/151603744662.29035.4910161264124875658.stgit@rabbit.intern.cm-ag/
> I submitted it more than 5 years ago, it got one positive review, but
> was never merged.
> 
> This patch enables the VFS's umask code even if the filesystem
> prerents to support ACLs. This still doesn't fix the filesystem bug,
> but makes VFS's behavior consistent.

OK, that solution works for me as well. I agree it seems a tad bit cleaner.
Christian, which one would you prefer?

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR