Re: [PATCH 11/12] vfs: don't parse "posixacl" option

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 05:18:16AM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> 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.

Point.  OK, I'm crawling in direction of bed right now - it's that or grab more
coffee, and I'll have to get up before 7am tomorrow ;-/

Later...



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux