On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 08:45:14AM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:11:03AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > People have long learned that we only have 'alloc' permissions. Any > > model that mixes allow and deny ACE is a mistake. > > People can also learn and change though :-). One of the > biggest complaints people deploying Samba on Linux have is the > incompatible ACL models. Just to confirm: I see this a lot in the field. NFSv4 ACLs, while not a perfect match for NTFS ACLs are a lot closer much more usable to people who want to serve Windows clients. Also in the pure linux world there is a lot that you can not express with just rwx, sgid, sticky bits and friends. If you want the additional functionality of the richacl bits, I would call it a big mistake to omit negative aces, if just for the reason not to create yet another ACLs flavor. > Whilst I have sympathy with your intense dislike of the > Windows ACL model, this comes down to the core of "who > do we serve ?" The world has enough confusion around ACL semanics, please do not add more to it by creating your own model of the day. Volker -- 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
