On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 12:40:29PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 06:23:26PM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > > On 01/13/2015 05:48 PM, Jeremy Allison wrote: > > >My understanding of Christoph's objection (although I'm sure > > >he can chime in himself :-) was that he wanted to see POSIX > > >ACLs reworked as a mapping on top of RichACLs, so that ultimately > > >RichACLs would be the only on-disk format of the EA. > > > > > >I think that is doable, as I think any POSIX ACL can be represented > > >as an underlying RichACL, just not the reverse. > > > > On of the differences is that permissions in POSIX ACLs do > > accumulate, while in NFSv4 and CIFS ACLs, and therefore also > > richacls, they do not. So the two models are really not > > interchangeable, however annoying that may be. > > > > For example, with the following POSIX ACL, a non-root process in > > group 5001 and 5002 would not be allowed to open f with O_RDWR, only > > with O_RDONLY *or* O_WRONLY. > > > > # file: f > > # owner: root > > # group: root > > user::rw- > > group::rw- > > group:5001:r-- > > group:5002:-w- > > mask::rw- > > other::--- > > > > In all the other ACL models, the process would be allowed to open f > > with O_RDWR. > > If we modified the behavior to permit O_RDWR in this case, would that > cause anyone a problem? Hmmmm. It changes userspace visible behavior. I can't think of any reason anyone would be relying on this (other than bugs :-) but still... -- 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
