On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 09:34:50PM +0400, Vyacheslav Dubeyko wrote: > On May 9, 2013, at 9:01 PM, Myklebust, Trond wrote: > > [snip] > > > > How does this make sense? There is no lossless mapping of NFSv4 acls > > into POSIX acls; the latter doesn't have any equivalent of the DENY > > aces so you cannot represent the full set of acls that can be set > > using MacOS on the same filesystem. > > > > Shouldn't you rather be looking at the richacl patch sets? > > > > Yes, I understand the nature of such mapping and impossibility of > mapping NFSv4 ACLs to POSIX ACLs in some cases. But, as I understand, > the richacl patch set is not mainline yet. Neither are these patches. You could pick up the richacl patches and work on them instead. That might be more work, I don't know, but the result would certainly be more useful, to many more people.... > And even if it will be in mainline then a user can have choice to use > POSIX ACLs or richacls. I actually kinda like the idea of allowing people to use either model and translating automatically between them. But it is complicated, and I'm not convinced it's necessary. > So, we need to map NFSv4 ACLs <-> POSIX ACLs in hfsplus for the case > of using POSIX ACLs model. I think that to have such mapping is better > than to have nothing. So, in the "better than nothing" spirit, I'll take a look at these, but I would still rather we get the richacl stuff done.... --b. > Moreover, a user can use HFS+ filesystem with > using POSIX ACLs only under Linux. Thereby, the generalization of > mapping NFSv4 ACLs <-> POSIX ACLs makes sense, from my viewpoint. > > With the best regards, Vyacheslav Dubeyko. > > > -- 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
