On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 12:24 AM, Andreas Grünbacher > <andreas.gruenbacher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 2016-12-06 0:19 GMT+01:00 Andreas Grünbacher <andreas.gruenbacher@xxxxxxxxx>: > >>> It's not hard to come up with a heuristic that determines if a >>> system.nfs4_acl value is equivalent to a file mode, and to ignore the >>> attribute in that case. (The file mode is transmitted in its own >>> attribute already, so actually converting .) That way, overlayfs could >>> still fail copying up files that have an actual ACL. It's still an >>> ugly hack ... >> >> Actually, that kind of heuristic would make sense in the NFS client >> which could then hide the "system.nfs4_acl" attribute. > > Even simpler would be if knfsd didn't send the attribute if not > necessary. Looks like there's code actively creating the nfs4_acl on > the wire even if the filesystem had none: > > pacl = get_acl(inode, ACL_TYPE_ACCESS); > if (!pacl) > pacl = posix_acl_from_mode(inode->i_mode, GFP_KERNEL); > > What's the point? That's how the protocol is specified. (I'm not saying that that's very helpful.) Andreas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-unionfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
