| 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | xfs èåææéèéäï, Service |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH v2 12/12] block: test fallocate for block devices, Darrick J. Wong |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH v18 00/22] Richacls (Core and Ext4), Christoph Hellwig |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH v18 00/22] Richacls (Core and Ext4), Volker Lendecke |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |