On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 4:42 AM Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 04:59:39PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > Unlike the others, this is _not_ a standard option accepted by mount(8). > > > > In fact SB_POSIXACL is an internal flag, and accepting MS_POSIXACL on the > > mount(2) interface is possibly a bug. > > > > The only filesystem that apparently wants to handle the "posixacl" option > > is 9p, but it has special handling of that option besides setting > > SB_POSIXACL. > > Huh? For e.g. ceph having -o posixacl and -o acl are currently equivalent; > your patch would seem to break that, wouldn't it? Yet again, this has nothing to do with mount(2) behavior. Also note that mount(8) does *not* handle "posixacl" and does *not* ever set MS_POSIXACL. So this has exactly zero chance of breaking anything. Thanks, Miklos
