lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH -V8 00/26] New ACL format for better NFSv4 acl interoperability
Date
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 05:49:10 -0400, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> 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.

-aneesh



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-10-24 13:39    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans