On Fri, 2016-03-11 at 09:07 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 06:01:34AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 09:17:05AM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher > > wrote: > > > > > > Al, > > > > > > could you please make sure you are happy with the current version > > > of the > > > richacl patch queue for the next merge window? > > I'm still not happy. > > > > For one I still see no reason to merge this broken ACL model at > > all. > > It provides our actualy Linux users no benefit at all, while > > breaking > > a lot of assumptions, especially by adding allow and deny ACE at > > the > > same sime. > Could you explain what you mean by "adding allow and deny ACE at the > same time"? > > > > > It also doesn't help with the issue that the main thing it's trying > > to be compatible with (Windows) actually uses a fundamentally > > different > > identifier to apply the ACLs to - as long as you're still limited > > to users and groups and not guids we'll still have that mapping > > problem > > anyway. > Agreed, but, one step at a time? My impression is that the Samba > people > still consider this a step forward for Linux compatibility. It is a step forward, but being able to store SIDs in the ACL, would be a much better one. Simo. > --b. > > > > > > > But besides that fundamental question on the purpose of it I also > > don't think the code is suitable, more in the individual patches. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" > in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- 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
