On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 09:17:48 -0600 > Shirish Pargaonkar <shirishpargaonkar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 23:00:25 -0600 >> > shirishpargaonkar@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >> > >> >> From: Shirish Pargaonkar <shirishpargaonkar@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> >> >> >> >> Allow setting cifs_acl on the server. >> >> Pass on to the server the ACL blob generated by an application. >> >> cifs is just a pass-through, server decides whether to enforce/apply >> >> the ACL blob composed by an application. >> >> >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Shirish Pargaonkar <shirishpargaonkar@xxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > Seems sane enough and is probably more useful than trying to map all of >> > this to POSIX acl's and modes. I wonder though...if you do this, then >> > the permissions and possibly ownership change. Do you need to >> >> owner/group will not change, only the ACL (DACL). >> > > So I can't change group ownership on the file by modifying the DACL? > > Also, while I don't particularly like the cifsacl acl-to-mode mapping > code, it still exists. If someone changes the ACL, don't you need to > account for the possibility that the mode has also changed? > > -- > Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> > I suppose any tool that avails this facility is expected to change the ACL (DACL) part of the security descriptor. That is what cifs module assumes is being passed on. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
