On Fri, 26 May 2023 at 09:50, Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 5:14 PM Björn JACKE <bj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 2023-05-25 at 13:22 -0700 Jeremy Allison sent off: > > > I think cifsfs providing access to ADS remotely on Windows > > > and Samba shares is fine. > > > > > > What I'm scared of is adding ADS as a generic "feature" to > > > the Linux VFS and other filesystems :-). > > > > full ack on Jeremy's view here. > > > > If there is something the the Linux VFS layer should *really* add to help > > interoperability with basically all other major OS implementations is NFSv4 > > ACLs. Seriously, for so many people living with Linux is a real pain due to > > the lack of NFS4 ACLs here. > > Today the "RichACLs" can be displayed multiple ways (e.g. "getcifsacl" > and various other > tools and also via system xattrs). > Being able to display "RichACLs" makes sense - and I am fine with > mapping these (and > probably would make sense to at least have a readonly mapping of the > existing richacls on > a file to "posixacl") and RichACLs are very important. > > Wouldn't it be easier to let them also be queried for cifs.ko via > "system.getrichacl" (or whatever > the "getrichacl" tool used in various xfstests uses)? Lets not use xattrs for this. Xattrs are capped at a very tiny maximum size for the amount of data they can store and I suspect very complex ACLs could probably quite easily grow beyond that limit. > > I was also wondering how we should display (and how to retrieve via > SMB3) "claims based ACLs" (presumably these are reasonably common on a > few server types like Windows)? > > > > -- > Thanks, > > Steve
