lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH -V8 00/26] New ACL format for better NFSv4 acl interoperability
    On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 05:49:10AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
    > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 05:17:16AM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
    > > > How do we push these changes to Linus tree ? Andrew, Viro, any comment
    > > > on how we can get this merged upstream ?
    > >
    > > Andrew, it sounds like you might be willing to shepherd these through?
    > > Let us know what you'd need.
    >
    > It really has to through the VFS tree.

    Do we have a VFS tree right now?

    > And to be honest despite the repostings there's been exactly zero
    > progress on getting there.

    Apparently some review was missed--do you have pointers to it, if
    there's anything that isn't covered below?

    > Please as a first thing submit the various small cleanups indepent
    > of the other changes. If you can't even those in there's no point
    > in trying. Second do not repeat the mistakes of the old ACL code,
    > that is don't do too much work inside the filesystems. Al, Linus
    > and me spent a lot of working on pushing it into common code and
    > it's not done. For any new ACL model I really want to see zero
    > per-fs code except for callouts in chmod & co and actually
    > setting the xattr vector to a genericly provided one. And please
    > wire up all common filesystems to actually prove that point.

    Sounds reasonable.

    > I also really hate all the duplication - I want to see a really good
    > reason why all this code needs to be duplicated. Just look at
    > the mess done to check_acl and the ACL caching in the inode and
    > any normal person would throw up. There is absolutely no reason
    > to not implement Posix ACLs as a subset of the NFSv4 ACL (not actually
    > a subset in the strict mathematical sense, but close enough).

    Just to make sure I understand: you're just talking about the
    implementation here--you want as much as possible to be done by routines
    shared by NFSv4 and Posix ACLs--right? (You're not suggesting that e.g.
    a user should be able to treat NFSv4 ACLs as if they were Posix ACLs.)

    > After all this techical work (which was brought up before) has been
    > done you can resubmit it. And that point you'd better have very
    > good and very lengthy rationale for why adding an utterly stupid
    > ACL model is supposed to be a good idea.

    It's the ACL model that Samba and NFSv4 clients use, and we want to do a
    better job of exporting linux filesystems to those clients.

    I don't know how to make the justification much longer than that.

    --b.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-10-24 13:11    [W:0.022 / U:90.160 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site