On 01/13/2015 11:14 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
As far as I remember (and I'm sorry if I'm too explicit here) the main issue is to find a way of implementing the features necessary for RichACLs in a way acceptable for Al and Christoph Hellwig. I specifically remember Christoph having strong opinions on the rich ACL features as such.
I'm aware of two major kinds of issues: first, if the permission model as implemented in the current (old) patch set makes sense and if a simplified model isn't enough, and second, if richacls really need to be represented differently than POSIX ACLs which are already in the kernel (struct posix_acl).
I think the features that the permission model that the richacl patches implement are needed and that a simplified model wouldn't be useful. As far as the implementation goes, there are significant differences among the two models (richacl entries can either allow or deny something, the order of entries matters, and instead of having "access" as well as default acls as separate objects, inheritance is determined by flags of the acl and its entries). But that doesn't require that different objects need to be used for representing the two kinds of acls: shoving both models into the same object type would make the details slightly more difficult to understand but those details would be somewhat hidden
at the "layer above" as well. I'll try if that approach holds any value. Thanks, Andreas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
