linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v18 00/22] Richacls (Core and Ext4)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:07:57 -0500
From:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v18 00/22] Richacls (Core and Ext4)

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 06:01:34AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 09:17:05AM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > Al,
> > 
> > could you please make sure you are happy with the current version of the
> > richacl patch queue for the next merge window?
> 
> I'm still not happy.
> 
> For one I still see no reason to merge this broken ACL model at all.
> It provides our actualy Linux users no benefit at all, while breaking
> a lot of assumptions, especially by adding allow and deny ACE at the
> same sime.

Could you explain what you mean by "adding allow and deny ACE at the
same time"?

> It also doesn't help with the issue that the main thing it's trying
> to be compatible with (Windows) actually uses a fundamentally different
> identifier to apply the ACLs to - as long as you're still limited
> to users and groups and not guids we'll still have that mapping problem
> anyway.

Agreed, but, one step at a time?  My impression is that the Samba people
still consider this a step forward for Linux compatibility.

--b.

> 
> But besides that fundamental question on the purpose of it I also
> don't think the code is suitable, more in the individual patches.