On 2016-03-15 at 21:17 +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 08:45:14AM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:11:03AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > People have long learned that we only have 'alloc' permissions. Any
> > > model that mixes allow and d
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 02:05:16PM -0600, Steve French wrote:
>> A loosely related question is what can be done for tools around existing
>> interfaces for ACLs. I recently found out NTFS-3g has this xattr:
>>
>> static const char nf
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Volker Lendecke
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 08:45:14AM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:11:03AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> > People have long learned that we only have 'alloc' permissions. Any
>> > model that mixes allow and
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 08:45:14AM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:11:03AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > 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 t
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
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 02:05:16PM -0600, Steve French wrote:
> A loosely related question is what can be done for tools around existing
> interfaces for ACLs. I recently found out NTFS-3g has this xattr:
>
> static const char nf_ns_xattr_ntfs_acl[] = "system.ntfs_acl";
>
> which allows you
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' permis
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 09:07:57AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> Could you explain what you mean by "adding allow and deny ACE at the
> same time"?
NFSv4/rich ACLs have both ALLOW and DENY ACE, which is contrary to
the model how we've operated since the dawn of time.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:02:13AM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 02:05:16PM -0600, Steve French wrote:
> >> Sounds like I need to quickly rework the SMB3 ACL helper functions
> >> for cifs.ko
> >>
> >> Also d
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 02:05:16PM -0600, Steve French wrote:
>> Sounds like I need to quickly rework the SMB3 ACL helper functions
>> for cifs.ko
>>
>> Also do you know where is the current version of the corresponding
>> vfs_richacl for
>
On Fri, 2016-03-11 at 09:07 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 06:01:34AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 09:17:05AM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Al,
> > >
> > > could you please make sure you are happy with the current ve
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 02:05:16PM -0600, Steve French wrote:
> Sounds like I need to quickly rework the SMB3 ACL helper functions
> for cifs.ko
>
> Also do you know where is the current version of the corresponding
> vfs_richacl for
> Samba which works with the current RichACL format?
I have a p
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Andreas Gruenbacher
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Christoph Hellwig w
> The model is designed specifically to be compliant with the POSIX
> permission model. What assumptions are you talking about?
>
>> especially by adding allow and deny ACE at the s
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 09:17:05AM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
>> Al,
>>
>> could you please make sure you are happy with the current version of the
>> richacl patch queue for the next merge window?
>
> I'm still not happy.
>
> For
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 06:01:34AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 09:17:05AM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > Al,
> >
> > could you please make sure you are happy with the current version of the
> > richacl patch queue for the next merge window?
>
> I'm still not h
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 09:17:05AM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> Al,
>
> could you please make sure you are happy with the current version of the
> richacl patch queue for the next merge window?
I'm still not happy.
For one I still see no reason to merge this broken ACL model at all.
It pr
Al,
could you please make sure you are happy with the current version of the
richacl patch queue for the next merge window?
Changes since the last posting (https://lwn.net/Articles/671398/):
* Some combinations of ACL entry flags were not computed correctly when
ACL entries were inherited f
17 matches
Mail list logo
