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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Sun, 27 Jul 2014 12:50:41 -0700
From:	Christoph Hellwig <>
To:	Trond Myklebust <>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <>,
	Andrey Utkin <>,
	Linux Kernel mailing list <>,
	Linux NFS Mailing List <>,,
	Russell King <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfs3_list_one_acl(): check get_acl() result with

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 11:13:50AM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> Why are we not passing the error code back to the caller here in the
> case where we have one? One of the main purposes of returning an error
> in get_acl() is to ensure that we pass -EOPNOTSUPP if the operation
> fails due to lack of server support.

Do we really want to return EOPNOTSUPP from listxattr?  Seems like
simply not listing anything if the server doesn't support ACLs would
be the usual behaviour.  E.g. on local filesystems we'll also just get
back an empty list of xattrs if ACLs aren't supported and not other
attribute is set.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists