"Michael j Theall" <mtheall@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Going by the patch I posted a couple of years ago: > https://sourceforge.net/p/fuse/mailman/message/33033653/ > > The only hole I see in your patch is that in setattr() you are not > updating the cached acl if the ATTR_MODE is updated. The other major > difference is that my version uses the get_acl/set_acl inode > operations but you use that plus the xattr handlers. I'm not > up-to-speed on the kernel so I'm not sure if you actually need to > implement both. That makes an interesting question. Is it desirable to keep inode->i_mode in sync with the posix acls in fuse or should a filesystem that supports posix acls worry about that? The fact that MS_POSIXACL is set indicates that fuse supports posix acls. Have posix acls never worked then? Eric -- 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
