linux-kernel - Re: A pass-through support for NFSv4 style ACL

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:   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...