From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp08.smtpout.orange.fr ([80.12.242.130]:22147 "EHLO smtp.smtpout.orange.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751420AbcF3HWI (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jun 2016 03:22:08 -0400 Message-ID: <5774C69D.7060507@wanadoo.fr> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 09:13:33 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jean-Pierre_Andr=c3=a9?= MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Seth Forshee , fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org CC: "Eric W. Biederman" , Miklos Szeredi Subject: Re: [fuse-devel] [RFC] fuse: Support posix ACLs References: <20160629190731.GF53123@ubuntu-hedt> In-Reply-To: <20160629190731.GF53123@ubuntu-hedt> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Seth Forshee wrote: > Eric and I are working towards adding support for fuse mounts in > non-init user namespaces. Towards that end we'd like to add ACL support > to fuse as this will allow for a cleaner implementation overall. Below My best wishes go with you. > is an initial patch to support this. I'd like to get some general > feedback on this patch and ask a couple of specific questions. > > There are some indications that fuse supports ACLs on the userspace side > when default_permissions is not used (though I'm not seeing how that > works). Will these changes conflict with that support, and if how do we > avoid those conflicts? ntfs-3g has both variants implemented. When supporting ACLs within the userspace, it does not set default_permissions, and it uses null cache timeouts. When expecting ACLs supported at the kernel level, it sets default_permissions and it uses non_null cache timeouts. It sets FUSE_CAP_DONT_MASK in both cases. I would expect default_permissions to make a clear divide between those conditions, avoiding any conflicts. Jean-Pierre