On Sun, Sep 25, 2022 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Steve French wrote: > On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 3:38 AM Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 10:52:43PM -0500, Steve French wrote: > > > Looks like the SMB1 Protocol operations for get/set posix ACL were > > > removed in the companion patch (in SMB3, POSIX ACLs have to be handled > > > > Sorry, what companion patch? Is a patch in this series or are you > > referring to something else? > > I found it - the patch order was confusing (I saw patches 4 and 27, > but patch 5 was > missed). The functions I was asking about were deleted in patch 27 in > your series but readded in patch 5 which I had missed. Ok, so we should be good. > > On the more general topic of POSIX ACLs: > - Note that they are supported for SMB1 (to some servers, including Samba) > - But ... almost all servers (including modern ones, not just ancient > SMB1 servers) support "RichACLs" (remember that RichACLs were > originally based on SMB/NTFS ACLs and include deny ACEs so cover use > cases that primitive POSIX ACLs can't handle) but for cifs.ko we have > to map the local UID to a global unique ID for each ACE (ie id to SID > translation). I am interested in the topic for how it is recommended > to map "POSIX ACLs" to "RichACLs." I am also interested in making I think this calls for a session during next years LSFMM but it's a bit out of scope for this refactoring. :) But we should keep this discussion in mind!
