[Adding Andreas Gruenbacher to Cc] On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Miklos, > > Here's an updated set of patches for supporting posix ACLs in fuse. I > think I've incorporated all the feedback from the last RFC series, and > so I've dropped the RFC this time. Pushed, with minor changes, to git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mszeredi/fuse.git#for-next Please verify that I didn't break it. > I also pushed to github the changes I made to libfuse for testing this. > They're a little rough and probably not 100% complete, but it is > sufficient for exercising the functionality of these patches with > fusexmp. > > https://github.com/sforshee/libfuse/tree/posix-acl As for the libfuse part: 1) Please don't mess with fusexmp.c. The added code is really an anti-example. Posix acls will will work fine in such pass-through filesystems without doing anything. The added complexity just makes it brittle and racy without actually doing anything positive. 2) You define some constants and structures (POSIX_ACL_*) in fuse_common.h that don't seem to belong there. There's <sys/acl.h> that contains some parts of that, but I'm not sure how much we want to tie libfuse to libacl... It's a difficult thing. Generally I'd try to keep the interface as narrow as possible. Perhaps it's enough to have a a function to return the equivalent mode from the xattr? 3) How will richacl's fit into this? 4) We really need a better example to check the efficiency of the new interface, but that's hard because we need a "real" filesystem for that and those are rare. Ntfs-3g is one such, and it would be interesting to "port" it to using the new API. Jean-Pierre, how difficult would that be? Thanks, Miklos -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
