On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 10:50:35AM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > Honestly I don't think I currently have a regression test for this so > it's possible I could have missed something upstream. I haven't seen > any reports, though.... > > ZFS's ACL implementation is very different from any in-tree > filesystem's, and given limited time, a filesystem with no prospect of > going upstream isn't going to get much attention, so, yes, I'd need to > see a reproducer on xfs or ext4 or something. Salvatore managing to reproduce it with ext4 yet all prior reports with the filesystem used being known was ZFS seems to suggest one of two things. First, could be enabling POSIX ACLs has been very strongly pushed by other filesystems, while ZFS hasn't pushed them as strongly. Second, could be a substantial majority of users of NFS are using ZFS. If the former, this simply means an additional test case is needed. If the latter, then any testing of NFS which excludes ZFS is going to have underwhelming coverage. -- (\___(\___(\______ --=> 8-) EHM <=-- ______/)___/)___/) \BS ( | ehem+sigmsg@xxxxxxx PGP 87145445 | ) / \_CS\ | _____ -O #include <stddisclaimer.h> O- _____ | / _/ 8A19\___\_|_/58D2 7E3D DDF4 7BA6 <-PGP-> 41D1 B375 37D0 8714\_|_/___/5445
