On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 12:33:40PM -0700, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > 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. The most recent patch I posted keeps them in sync. Thanks, Seth -- 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
