[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH -V8 00/26] New ACL format for better NFSv4 acl interoperability
    On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 05:49:10 -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. And to be honest despite the
    > repostings there's been exactly zero progress on getting there.
    > 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.

    I will do this as the next step. The series actually contain them as
    separate patches.

    > 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.

    This is what is done currently. I have only hooked up ext4 though.
    What I have done is add a new inode operation get_richacl, that
    returns struct richacl *. Are you suggesting to get rid of that
    and make sure get_acl can return different type of ACL based on
    argument passed ?. IMHO that would end up making the code more complex.

    > 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).

    Can you explain this more ? What you would like to see changed ?

    > 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.

    Thanks for the feedback.


     \ /
      Last update: 2011-10-24 13:39    [W:0.031 / U:18.348 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site