xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v18 00/22] Richacls (Core and Ext4)
From: Jeremy Allison <jra@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 08:45:14 -0700
Cc: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@xxxxxxxxxx>, 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
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=samba.org; s=42627210; h=Message-ID:Cc:To:From:Date; bh=feTjZmsYN1Cw3lfZgOiSeyQQ5pgvHlMCrDQ5OMZRqww=; b=U+y2rMX7cBNrSgKMH5MBlZTLIt0F7mJ1NGUfl9vgyUe7ho0UYRJqkTfeHxFkJhO3ZnA9VaMXf8qr1PwkyqewbRNMZVS7KcnncgykGTVzSY6iT0lP4pQumpRFkbsj9mwzVKISdqMQ+m1b0T9ORH42H73Hp9cBAfVIDilSsVXP10U=;
In-reply-to: <20160315071103.GC19747@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1456733847-17982-1-git-send-email-agruenba@xxxxxxxxxx> <20160311140134.GA14808@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CAHc6FU4t3yisCM=MXrHRmCja_A8eZOpVa1smJ0gUhv+vuUAuXA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20160315071103.GC19747@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Jeremy Allison <jra@xxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:11:03AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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.

People can also learn and change though :-). One of the
biggest complaints people deploying Samba on Linux have is the
incompatible ACL models.

Whilst I have sympathy with your intense dislike of the
Windows ACL model, this comes down to the core of "who
do we serve ?" IMHO we should serve the users (although
I must confess I'd look awful in a TRON suit :-).

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