From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp04.smtpout.orange.fr ([80.12.242.126]:56877 "EHLO smtp.smtpout.orange.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752059AbcHIHGF (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2016 03:06:05 -0400 Message-ID: <57A980D8.1040003@wanadoo.fr> Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2016 09:06:00 +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, Miklos Szeredi , "Eric W. Biederman" , Michael j Theall Subject: Re: [RFC v3 0/2] Support for posix acls in fuse References: <1470086846-19844-1-git-send-email-seth.forshee@canonical.com> <874m6u3j1p.fsf@thinkpad.rath.org> In-Reply-To: <874m6u3j1p.fsf@thinkpad.rath.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Nikolaus Rath wrote: > On Aug 01 2016, Seth Forshee wrote: >> - Remove passthrough of acl xattrs when fuse acl support is disabled or >> default_permissions is not used. >> >> This last change is user visible, but as fuse filesystems cannot >> meaninfully support acls today it's not really a regression. > > Are you sure about that? I believe there are FUSE file systems out there > that are parsing/constructing the kernel's xattr representation and > (together with no_default_permissions) support ACLs. Or is there another > problem? Indeed, the current implementation of Posix ACLs in ntfs-3g relies on ACLs being sent to user space as xattrs, with default_permissions not set (and cacheing disabled). I agree this is not a "meaningful acl support", but it has been the only way for ten years. Why should this be changed when FUSE_POSIX_ACL feature flag is not set in INIT ? Jean-Pierre