| To: | Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH v13 21/51] ext4: Add richacl feature flag |
| From: | Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 4 Nov 2015 03:28:03 +0100 |
| Cc: | Alexander Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx>, Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@xxxxxxxxx>, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, XFS Developers <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-cifs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Linux API <linux-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Dkim-signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat_com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=yLmTmPpmXwdczLAqThQLtFK3IdLdSXKlno6FZ3is5Og=; b=iSnTqYl7RpRFaKaB7NBqNB729af3BAw1XgMHDFZi3hQ8zy8I3YSWgYJ654D/5iDst3 WNGeurv67UnwaZJilS5OAgqzN41zkeHvGH2rUoa/jaXC4/VOoxbFGtq9q96FEMIpSJae GN04H3rqCisgB1WyHMjw37Fks86r98oWoAcv9lginYKqmrx29bLBbMOHZDlxrOq5X2JZ vtWeKjGTljnkrSRbD/rxYj7CIqFHNyJWia6FqF5PyCpPqceduPujLI+AqJAFf5xs9bGu /kgtn+PNJSpVTS+ryUOBwXO5AWN52v+sBo4tQUuuXGJmlYBBcyBMp0l9DhoPuzthaPza Hq8A== |
| In-reply-to: | <06282344-726E-49AD-936B-7BFF8F43B967@xxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <1446563847-14005-1-git-send-email-agruenba@xxxxxxxxxx> <1446563847-14005-22-git-send-email-agruenba@xxxxxxxxxx> <06282344-726E-49AD-936B-7BFF8F43B967@xxxxxxxxx> |
Andreas, On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 3:18 AM, Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This patch confuses me. I thought the whole point of INCOMPAT_RICHACL > was that the filesystem should never, ever be mounted without ACL support > because the ACLs will get confused without it. In that case, it doesn't > make sense to have a mount option that _has_ to be specified to mount the > filesystem, and returns an error when trying to disable it. > > It makes more sense to just enable "acl" by default if INCOMPAT_RICHACL > is set in the superblock and not need the mount option at all. It's the commit message that's misleading here, I'll fix it. On richacl filesystems, the acl mount option is always on. It's only on POSIX ACL filesystems that the mount option can be used to turn POSIX ACLs off (which arguably wasn't such a good idea, but there we have it). Thanks, Andreas |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH v13 43/51] ext4: Don't allow unmapped identifiers in richacls, Andreas Dilger |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH v13 02/51] vfs: Add MAY_CREATE_FILE and MAY_CREATE_DIR permission flags, Andreas Dilger |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH v13 21/51] ext4: Add richacl feature flag, Andreas Dilger |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH v13 21/51] ext4: Add richacl feature flag, Andreas Gruenbacher |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |