On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2015-10-16 13:41, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 7:31 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn >> <ahferro...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I would like to re-iterate, on both XFS and ext4, I _really_ think this >>> should be a ro_compat flag, and not an incompat one. If a person has the >>> ability to mount the FS (even if it's a read-only mount), then they by >>> definition have read access to the file or partition that the filesystem >>> is contained in, which means that any ACL's stored on the filesystem are >>> functionally irrelevant, >> >> It is unfortunately not safe to make such a file system accessible to >> other users, so the feature is not strictly read-only compatible. >> > OK, seeing as I wasn't particularly clear as to why I object to this in my > other e-mail, let's try this again. > > Can you please explain exactly why it isn't safe to make such a filesystem > accessible to other users?
See here: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-ext4/msg49541.html Andreas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
