On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 10:23 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> The following patches allow the umask to be ignored in the presence of >> inheritable NFSv4 ACLs. Otherwise inheritable ACLs can be rendered >> mostly useless whenever the umask masks out group bits. >> >> This solves a problem we've seen complaints about for some time, both >> upstream and from RHEL users. >> >> The new protocol has been discussed in the IETF working group and is >> documented at: >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask-02 >> >> It's unlikely that we'll discover problems requiring an incompatible >> change, so I think we should consider this for 4.10. > > Nope, these patches don't implement draft-ietf-nfsv4-umask-02 yet, and > need updating first. Oops, turns out I was confused. The patches do implement the proposed new mode_umask attribute right but call it FATTR4_WORD2_UMASK in the code, which doesn't seem right. Let me follow up with a version that renames the attribute to FATTR4_WORD2_MODE_UMASK. The rest looks fine. Thanks, Andreas -- 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
