From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9372DC433DF for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 14:50:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6047D20644 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 14:50:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="IhIkBOhR" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730214AbgFOOux (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jun 2020 10:50:53 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-2.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.61]:20169 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728304AbgFOOuw (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jun 2020 10:50:52 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1592232651; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=TpVjMtECVs4h4/5L1/hV06u0Qvrl5D0MM8zvZ/HINqQ=; b=IhIkBOhRguxbRmrXdS9RMKJDDmkamZjAJzFtv6vSXU4KTe+YBGI6GizESLo0yw6jWcRcDd uQEDq2ZmFfj/DwumHVmUXC6AmO7A3Bp8loGwUblRKbqdDQRsycvmvostGk6QQMQkCVKI03 9bvdWALckhsizVISGthx1ZM30cWuHiM= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-40-hJQvTLJCPUKltUfRYFWWLg-1; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 10:50:38 -0400 X-MC-Unique: hJQvTLJCPUKltUfRYFWWLg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2C17100A8F7; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 14:50:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pick.fieldses.org (ovpn-118-200.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.118.200]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F1FE61983; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 14:50:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pick.fieldses.org (Postfix, from userid 2815) id DA423120476; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 10:50:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 10:50:35 -0400 From: "J. Bruce Fields" To: Elliott Mitchell Cc: Salvatore Bonaccorso , 962254@bugs.debian.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, agruenba@redhat.com Subject: Re: Umask ignored when mounting NFSv4.2 share of an exported ZFS (with acltype=off) (was: Re: Bug#962254: NFS(v4) broken at 4.19.118-2) Message-ID: <20200615145035.GA214986@pick.fieldses.org> References: <20200605051607.GA34405@mattapan.m5p.com> <20200605064426.GA1538868@eldamar.local> <20200605051607.GA34405@mattapan.m5p.com> <20200605174349.GA40135@mattapan.m5p.com> <20200605183631.GA1720057@eldamar.local> <20200611223711.GA37917@mattapan.m5p.com> <20200613125431.GA349352@eldamar.local> <20200613184527.GA54221@mattapan.m5p.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200613184527.GA54221@mattapan.m5p.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 11:45:27AM -0700, Elliott Mitchell wrote: > I disagree with this assessment. All of the reporters have been using > ZFS, but this could indicate an absence of testers using other > filesystems. We need someone with a NFS server which has a 4.15+ kernel > and uses a different filesystem which supports ACLs. Honestly I don't think I currently have a regression test for this so it's possible I could have missed something upstream. I haven't seen any reports, though.... ZFS's ACL implementation is very different from any in-tree filesystem's, and given limited time, a filesystem with no prospect of going upstream isn't going to get much attention, so, yes, I'd need to see a reproducer on xfs or ext4 or something. --b.