linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 13/14] ntfs: add Kconfig and Makefile

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]

Message-ID: <CAKYAXd_07=0fPd4As1HajY-Q_Uvkqm6LLvri6=wzTV833=RB-g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 13:27:08 +0900
From: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org, tytso@....edu, 
	willy@...radead.org, jack@...e.cz, djwong@...nel.org, josef@...icpanda.com, 
	sandeen@...deen.net, rgoldwyn@...e.com, xiang@...nel.org, dsterba@...e.com, 
	pali@...nel.org, ebiggers@...nel.org, neil@...wn.name, amir73il@...il.com, 
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, cheol.lee@....com, jay.sim@....com, gunho.lee@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 13/14] ntfs: add Kconfig and Makefile

On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 4:19 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 02:08:01PM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> > > > +
> > > > +       If you don't know what Access Control Lists are, say N.
> > >
> > > This looks like a new feature over the old driver.  What is the
> > > use case for it?
> > The POSIX ACLs support is intended to ensure functional parity and ABI
> > compatibility with the existing ntfs3 driver, which already supports
> > this feature. Since this ntfs aims to be a replacement for ntfs3,
> > providing the same mount options and permission model is essential for
> > a seamless user transition.
>
> Can you make this more clear in the help text?
Sure, I'll update it.
>
>
> > Furthermore, By enabling this feature, we can pass more xfstests test
> > cases.
>
> Passing more tests only really matters when they were failing before,
> and lack of Posix ACL code should not lead to failures - if it does
> we need to improve feature detection in xfstests.
I agreed. and xfstests already handles acl detection correctly..

Thanks!
>