[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8f3ba729-ed44-7bed-5ff8-b962547e5582@math.utexas.edu>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 17:26:56 +0000
From: "Goetz, Patrick G" <pgoetz@...h.utexas.edu>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
CC: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
Andreas Grünbacher
<andreas.gruenbacher@...il.com>,
Patrick Plagwitz <Patrick_Plagwitz@....de>,
"linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux NFS list <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] overlayfs: ignore empty NFSv4 ACLs in ext4 upperdir
On 5/1/19 10:57 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
> Support some day support for nfs4 acls were added to ext4 (not a totally
> ridiculous suggestion). We would then want NFS to allow it's ACLs to be
> copied up.
Is there some reason why there hasn't been a greater effort to add NFSv4
ACL support to the mainstream linux filesystems? I have to support a
hybrid linux/windows environment and not having these ACLs on ext4 is a
daily headache for me.
Also, it doesn't take much need for security granularity to realize that
POSIX ACLs (not ever even formally standardized!) are fairly inadequate,
but more importantly, don't play nicely with their Windows friends.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists