On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:21:27AM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K. V wrote: > On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 23:31:31 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I guess we are not marking the inode attribute as invalid when we set > > the ACL value. For ex: > > > > /d# mkdir sub3 > > /d# ls -dl sub3 > > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Nov 10 17:56 sub3 > > /d# nfs4_setfacl -s A:fd:EVERYONE@:rwax sub3 > > /d# ls -dl sub3 > > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Nov 10 17:56 sub3 > > /d# > > > > > > On the server i have the mode bits as > > /d# ls -dl sub3 > > drwxrwxrwx 2 root root 4096 Nov 10 17:56 sub3 > > /d# > > We also have similar issue other way round. ie setting the mode bits > don't result in ACL values being invalidated. But a second request get > the right value of ACL as show below. Both look like bugs to me. (I remember their being pointed out before, though--did we drop the ball, or was there some reason for the current behavior?) --b. > > /d# nfs4_getfacl x > A::OWNER@:rw > A::GROUP@:rw > A::EVERYONE@:r > /d# chmod 600 x > /d# nfs4_getfacl x > A::OWNER@:rw > A::GROUP@:rw > A::EVERYONE@:r > /d# > > Expected value is > > /d# nfs4_getfacl x > A::OWNER@:rw > > -aneesh > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
