[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230517-outen-galopp-cf33633006b5@brauner>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2023 09:50:02 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
Ondrej Valousek <ondrej.valousek.xm@...esas.com>,
"trondmy@...merspace.com" <trondmy@...merspace.com>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: A pass-through support for NFSv4 style ACL
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 12:45:13AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 09:42:59AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > I have no idea about the original flame war that ended RichACLs in
> > additition to having no clear clue what RichACLs are supposed to
> > achieve. My current knowledge extends to "Christoph didn't like them".
>
> Christoph certainly doesn't like Rich ACLs, as do many other people.
>
> But the deal block was that the patchset:
>
> - totally duplicated the VFS level ACL handling instead of having
> a common object for Posix and the new ACLs
Which seems like a pretty obvious choice... That was the first thing I
thought of doing (see earlier mail).
> - did add even more mess to the already horrible xattr interface
> instead of adding syscalls.
Plus that was before I moved POSIX ACLs out of the xattr handlers so
they would've had to get that work done first for this to not end up a
horrible horrible mess...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists