On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 11:19 -0600, Malahal Naineni wrote:
> Currently we support ACLs if the NFS server file system supports both
> ALLOW and DENY ACE types. This patch makes the Linux client work with
> ACLs even if the server supports only 'ALLOW' ACE type.
>
> Signed-off-by: Malahal Naineni <malahal@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 5 ++---
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> index 15052b8..e3b8fa6 100644
> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> @@ -4321,9 +4321,8 @@ static int nfs4_proc_renew(struct nfs_client *clp, struct rpc_cred *cred)
>
> static inline int nfs4_server_supports_acls(struct nfs_server *server)
> {
> - return (server->caps & NFS_CAP_ACLS)
> - && (server->acl_bitmask & ACL4_SUPPORT_ALLOW_ACL)
> - && (server->acl_bitmask & ACL4_SUPPORT_DENY_ACL);
> + return server->caps & NFS_CAP_ACLS &&
> + server->acl_bitmask & ACL4_SUPPORT_ALLOW_ACL;
> }
>
> /* Assuming that XATTR_SIZE_MAX is a multiple of PAGE_SIZE, and that
Wait... Having looked at the code a bit more carefully. Is there any
reason to set NFS_CAP_ACLS at all if we don't see server->acl_bitmask &
ACL4_SUPPORT_ALLOW_ACL?
IOW: Is there any reason why we shouldn't just move the test for
server->acl_bitmask & ACL4_SUPPORT_ALLOW_ACL into
_nfs4_server_capabilities()?
I agree that will change the output of /proc/self/mountstats for broken
servers that advertise acls, but don't set ACL4_SUPPORT_ALLOW_ACL,
however since we will never serve up getacl, setacl or listacl requests
in that case, why would we advertise the server as supporting it?
--
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
