On Thu, May 02 2019, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 10:05 AM Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 2 May 2019 at 05:57, NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Wed, May 01 2019, Amir Goldstein wrote: >> > > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 10:03 PM NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> On Tue, Dec 06 2016, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 02:18:31PM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: >> > >> >> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> >> > On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 12:24 AM, Andreas Grünbacher >> > >> >> > <andreas.gruenbacher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> >> >> 2016-12-06 0:19 GMT+01:00 Andreas Grünbacher <andreas.gruenbacher@xxxxxxxxx>: >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> >>> It's not hard to come up with a heuristic that determines if a >> > >> >> >>> system.nfs4_acl value is equivalent to a file mode, and to ignore the >> > >> >> >>> attribute in that case. (The file mode is transmitted in its own >> > >> >> >>> attribute already, so actually converting .) That way, overlayfs could >> > >> >> >>> still fail copying up files that have an actual ACL. It's still an >> > >> >> >>> ugly hack ... >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> Actually, that kind of heuristic would make sense in the NFS client >> > >> >> >> which could then hide the "system.nfs4_acl" attribute. >> >> I still think the nfs client could make this problem mostly go away by >> not exposing "system.nfs4_acl" xattrs when the acl is equivalent to >> the file mode. The richacl patches contain a workable abgorithm for >> that. The problem would remain for files that have an actual NFS4 ACL, >> which just cannot be mapped to a file mode or to POSIX ACLs in the >> general case, as well as for files that have a POSIX ACL. Mapping NFS4 >> ACL that used to be a POSIX ACL back to POSIX ACLs could be achieved >> in many cases as well, but the code would be quite messy. A better way >> seems to be to using a filesystem that doesn't support POSIX ACLs in >> the first place. Unfortunately, xfs doesn't allow turning off POSIX >> ACLs, for example. > > How about mounting NFSv4 with noacl? That should fix this issue, right? No. "noacl" only affect NFSv3 (and maybe v2) and it disables use of the NFSACL side-protocol. "noacl" has no effect on an NFSv4 mount. NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
