On Wed 11-10-23 14:27:49, Max Kellermann wrote: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 2:18 PM Max Kellermann <max.kellermann@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > But without the other filesystems. I'll resend it with just the > > posix_acl.h hunk. > > Thinking again, I don't think this is the proper solution. This may > server as a workaround so those broken filesystems don't suffer from > this bug, but it's not proper. > > posix_acl_create() is only supposed to appy the umask if the inode > supports ACLs; if not, the VFS is supposed to do it. But if the > filesystem pretends to have ACL support but the kernel does not, it's > really a filesystem bug. Hacking the umask code into > posix_acl_create() for that inconsistent case doesn't sound right. > > A better workaround would be this patch: > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-nfs/patch/151603744662.29035.4910161264124875658.stgit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-ag/ > I submitted it more than 5 years ago, it got one positive review, but > was never merged. > > This patch enables the VFS's umask code even if the filesystem > prerents to support ACLs. This still doesn't fix the filesystem bug, > but makes VFS's behavior consistent. OK, that solution works for me as well. I agree it seems a tad bit cleaner. Christian, which one would you prefer? Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR
