xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH v18 00/22] Richacls (Core and Ext4)

To: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v18 00/22] Richacls (Core and Ext4)
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 00:11:03 -0700
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Alexander Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>, linux-cifs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Linux API <linux-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, XFS Developers <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@xxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <CAHc6FU4t3yisCM=MXrHRmCja_A8eZOpVa1smJ0gUhv+vuUAuXA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1456733847-17982-1-git-send-email-agruenba@xxxxxxxxxx> <20160311140134.GA14808@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CAHc6FU4t3yisCM=MXrHRmCja_A8eZOpVa1smJ0gUhv+vuUAuXA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 05:11:51PM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > while breaking a lot of assumptions,
> 
> The model is designed specifically to be compliant with the POSIX
> permission model. What assumptions are you talking about?

People have long learned that we only have 'alloc' permissions.  Any
model that mixes allow and deny ACE is a mistake.

> > especially by adding allow and deny ACE at the same time.
> 
> I remember from past discussions that a permission model like the
> POSIX ACL model that doesn't have DENY ACEs would be more to your
> liking. This argument is dead from the start though: NFSv4 ACLs
> without DENY ACEs cannot represent basic file permissions like 0604
> where the owning group has fewer permissions than others, for example
> (see the richaclex(7) man page). We would end up with a permission
> model that isn't even compatible with the traditional POSIX file
> permission model, one which nobody else implements or cares about.

So let's stick to the model that we already have.

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