On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 04:08:15PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K. V wrote: > On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 13:58:47 -0500, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 11:17:56PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K. V wrote: > > > On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 10:49:43 -0500, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 12:20:36PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K. V wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:11:45 -0500, "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Aneesh, > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the current status of this patch series? I seem to remember > > > > > > that Christoph and Al Viro had some objections; have those been > > > > > > cleared yet? If not, can you summarize what their objections are? > > > > > > > > > > The main objection raised was the use of may_delete and may_create inode > > > > > operations callback. They are gone now and we have MAY_* flags as > > > > > favoured by Al Viro. The new MAY_* flags added are > > > > > > > > > > #define MAY_CREATE_FILE 128 > > > > > #define MAY_CREATE_DIR 256 > > > > > #define MAY_DELETE_CHILD 512 > > > > > #define MAY_DELETE_SELF 1024 > > > > > #define MAY_TAKE_OWNERSHIP 2048 > > > > > #define MAY_CHMOD 4096 > > > > > #define MAY_SET_TIMES 8192 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To be honest I haven't been paying super close attention to this patch > > > > > > series, and I'm curious what needs to happen with it one way or > > > > > > another. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMHO we are ready to get first 11 patches upstream in the next merge > > > > > window. ie the below set of patches. > > > > > > > > Why aren't all of them ready? > > > > > > > > > > All except how to enable richacl in local file system is ready. I > > > actually floated two ideas in the patch series > > > > > > 1) mount option > > > 2) Ext4 compat flags. > > > > The choice of ACL format is a persistant property of the filesystem, not > > of a single mount of the filesystem: for example, people can't try out > > richacls for one mount and then decide to revert bacak to posix acls. > > > > (Right?) So I'm assuming we should use the latter--but I don't > > understand what ext4 compat flags are.... Is there some disadvantage to > > using them? > > > > We already have a mount option to enable posix acl (-o acl|noacl). So > along the same line should we have -o richacl|norichacl or should we > have richacl as a ext4 compat flag EXT4_FEATURE_COMPAT_RICHACL. The > compat feature can be enabled via tune2fs for an already created file > system. Once the compat feature is enabled a -o acl mount option cause > the richacl access check to be enabled. That can also result in > mapping the existing posix acl in the file system to richacl and > using mapped richacl for access restriction. With compat flag once set > we will never be able to mount the file system again to use posix acl > access restriction. (We cannot map richacl to posixacl because richacl > support advanced access masks) Sounds fine to me. I'm not sure you answered my question. Is there any disadvantage to doing it this way? --b. > With mount option (-o richacl) we can still mount the file system with > -o acl which implies we will have to ignore the richacl associated with > files and only evaluate the posix acl stored. -- 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
