On Jun 29 2016, 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? A FUSE file system should be able to support ACLs without requiring the file system process to do more than support extended attributes. I believe this means that the kernel should keep i_mode and the ACLs in sync -- it would be a rather bug prone and redundant for each FUSE file system to implement its own parser for format in which the ACLs are stored in xattrs. Best, -Nikolaus -- GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.« -- 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
