[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <145e01d1cd72$d9b8d570$8d2a8050$@mindspring.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 10:15:31 -0700
From: "Frank Filz" <ffilzlnx@...dspring.com>
To: "'Weston Andros Adamson'" <dros@...key.org>,
"'Andreas Gruenbacher'" <andreas.gruenbacher@...il.com>
Cc: "'Linux Kernel'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"'linux-nfs list'" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
"'Weston Adamson'" <dros@...marydata.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC v3 42/45] nfs: Add richacl support
> First, let me say thanks for all the work! We (Primary Data) have been using
> samba with the vfs_richacl module reexporting an nfsv4.2 mount and things
> are working pretty well. You can count on us for testing, bug fixing and code
> review.
>
> Now for my question: It looks like this call to richacl_apply_masks in the client
> xattr_set path exists so that the knfsd permission check algorithm works
> correctly.
> This makes some pretty big assumptions about the server’s implementation.
> There are other servers out there besides knfsd!
>
> I think this will have to be fixed before this patch can be accepted. I’m willing
> to help, but I’m wondering where this should be fixed:
>
> Do we call richacl_apply_masks on the server before setting the xattr so the
> normalized acl is saved, or should we save the ACL as-is and call
> richacl_apply_masks before it’s used?
I definitely want to hear more about this. At some point we will utilize RichACLs in Ganesha.
Frank
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists