From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Frank Filz" Subject: RE: [PATCH v23 08/22] richacl: Compute maximum file masks from an acl Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 12:38:50 -0700 Message-ID: <018b01d1dd3e$2f868170$8e938450$@mindspring.com> References: <1467294433-3222-1-git-send-email-agruenba@redhat.com> <1467294433-3222-9-git-send-email-agruenba@redhat.com> <1467728537.3800.32.camel@redhat.com> <014101d1d6df$e059fd20$a10df760$@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-us Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: 'Andreas Gruenbacher' Cc: 'Jeff Layton' , 'Alexander Viro' , 'Christoph Hellwig' , 'Theodore Ts'o' , 'Andreas Dilger' , "'J. Bruce Fields'" , 'Trond Myklebust' , 'Anna Schumaker' , 'Dave Chinner' , 'linux-ext4' , 'XFS Developers' , 'LKML' , 'linux-fsdevel' , 'Linux NFS Mailing List' , linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, 'Linux API' List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org > > Hmm, but does that result in examining the whole ACL for most access > checks, at least for files where most of the accesses are by the owner, or a > member of a specific group (with perhaps a ton of special case users added > on the end)? > > I don't understand -- what does this algorithm have to do with access checks? Oh, sorry, misread the patch... got caught up looking at a tree and not seeing the forest... Frank --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus