ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
"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?
Using a former implementation of ACLs within fuse at the
kernel level, I got the result below.
File systems expect consistency.
# Using the low level interface of fuse, with use of ACLs
# intended to be checked in the kernel, but not related to
# access control
rm -rf trydir
mkdir trydir
echo file > trydir/file
ls -l trydir/file
setfacl -m 'u::7,g::5,o::5' trydir/file
ls -l trydir/file
sleep 1
ls -l trydir/file
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 5 2009-09-12 12:02 trydir/file
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 5 2009-09-12 12:02 trydir/file
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 5 2009-09-12 12:02 trydir/file
Jean-Pierre
--
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
