[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS and Extended ACLs

To: nailman23@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: XFS and Extended ACLs
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:15:43 +1000
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <001636458d40cae4e1048a2bf4e9@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <001636458d40cae4e1048a2bf4e9@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 02:21:42PM +0000, nailman23@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hi All,
> I have an issue with extended ACLs. The situation is as follows:
> 1) There are two users (UserA and UserB)
> 2) They belong to the same group (users)
> 3) The SAMBA share called "test" has user access enabled for UserA and UserB
> 4) The UserA creates test.docx file on the "test" share and he
> becomes the owner of the file.
> 5) Then UserB edits the test.docx file and save changes. After that
> UserB becomes the owner. It is not an issue because when editing the
> file Word creates new temporary file and then, during saving,
> overwrites the original file. The issue is when you check ACLs entry
> you will see that UserA has his own ACLs entries, although he
> already belongs to the "users" groups.
> This occurs when the share has XFS file system in the bottom.
> Then I have created an ext3 file system on the logical volume and
> after performing all steps, the UserB was owner of the file, but the
> UserA was no longer listed in ACLs entries.

Can you provide a script that demonstrates the problem?

> It seems the issue comes from XFS and the way as the XFS handles the
> ACLs permissions.

XFS uses the most of the generic code for getting and setting ACLs,
so there shouldn't be any difference unless there is a bug or you
are using an old kernel. What kernel are you running?


Dave Chinner

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>