Trond Myklebust [trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] wrote: > > On Jan 23, 2014, at 20:50, Malahal Naineni <malahal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Currently we support ACLs if the NFS server file system supports > > ALLOW and DENY ACE types. This patch makes the Linux client work with > > ACLs if the server supports either ALLOW or DENY ACE types. > > According to RFC5661, the behaviour if you don’t have ALLOW aces is to deny all access. How does it make sense to accept that? I have a server that only returned 'ALLOW' type support probably due to a bug! There is nothing in the spec that said a server 'MUST' support 'ALLOW' and 'DENY' ACE types (RFC5661 does say 'SHOULD' though!). That was my reasoning to fix the client to be more liberal/lenient. Can a server implicitly construct 'ALLOW' ACEs based on mode and not support explicitly setting such ACEs by a client? I am not too familiar with ACLs, if you think we should only check for 'ALLOW' support flag, I can re-spin the patch but I think it is better to be more lenient specially if it is not incorrect by being more lenient! Please let me know either way. Regards, Malahal. -- 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
