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...
