On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 22:45 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K. V wrote:
> Any update on this ?
>
> -aneesh
>
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 17:05:14 +0530, "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > We want to skip VFS applying mode for NFS. So set MS_POSIXACL always
> > and selectively use umask. Ideally we would want to use umask only
> > when we don't have inheritable ACEs set. But NFS currently don't
> > allow to send umask to the server. So this is best what we can do
> > and this is consistent with NFSv3
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/nfs/dir.c | 3 +--
> > fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 5 +++++
> > fs/nfs/super.c | 10 ++++++++++
> > 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/nfs/super.c b/fs/nfs/super.c
> > index 3c04504..e57e670 100644
> > --- a/fs/nfs/super.c
> > +++ b/fs/nfs/super.c
> > @@ -2508,6 +2513,11 @@ static void nfs4_fill_super(struct super_block *sb)
> > {
> > sb->s_time_gran = 1;
> > sb->s_op = &nfs4_sops;
> > + /*
> > + * The VFS shouldn't apply the umask to mode bits. We will do
> > + * so ourselves when necessary.
> > + */
> > + sb->s_flags |= MS_POSIXACL;
> > nfs_initialise_sb(sb);
> > }
Won't this end up possibly turning on ACL checking in
acl_permission_check()?
Cheers
Trond
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer
NetApp
Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx
www.netapp.com
--
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
