On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:28 PM, Andreas Grünbacher
<andreas.gruenbacher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Using definitions from <sys/acl.h> doesn't necessarily create a
> runtime dependency on libacl.
>
> What does fuse actually need to do with POSIX ACLs? I understand that
> setxattr("system.posix_acl_access") updates both the access ACL and
> the file mode, and so does chmod. Both these operations can be
> implemented quite easily based in the xattr value though; I wouldn't
> choose to use libacl for that.
The xattr representation of posix acls is linux specific as far as I
understand. By passing this representation to fuse filesystems it
becomes part of the fuse protocol. This doesn't necessarily mean that
we have to actually decode the acl in the fuse library, but it needs
to be documented at least.
BTW, I find it strange that the xattr representation of posix acls are
not in any uapi header files.
>
>> 3) How will richacl's fit into this?
>
> Richacls work similar to POSIX ACLs from fuse's point of view. The
> algorithms for updating a richacl upon a chmod and for computing the
> new file mode from setxattr("system.richacl") are significantly more
> complicated though; also, librichacl isn't as over engineered as
> libacl, so I would use librichacl for these operations.
Does librichacl have xattr->acl and acl->xattr conversion functions?
Because libacl seems to lack these...
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
