From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: trond.myklebust@primarydata.com (Trond Myklebust) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 10:45:48 -0500 Subject: NFS client broken in Linus' tip In-Reply-To: <20140203145759.GA30263@infradead.org> References: <20140130140834.GW15937@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20140130141405.GA23985@infradead.org> <20140130142752.GX15937@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20140130143208.GB9573@infradead.org> <20140130153812.GA15937@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <1391201970.6978.1.camel@leira.trondhjem.org> <20140203080325.GB806@infradead.org> <85AAFCF5-60EE-42E5-B103-37A4613C5947@primarydata.com> <20140203145759.GA30263@infradead.org> Message-ID: <3003D7E5-93F8-4B32-ACDB-07ED3F6CE70D@primarydata.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Feb 3, 2014, at 9:57, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 09:17:30AM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: >> As I said above, that causes posix_acl_xattr_get() to return the wrong answer (ENODATA instead of EOPNOTSUPP). > > Is it really the wrong answer? How does userspace care wether this > server doesn't support ACLs at all or none is set? The resulting > behavior is the same. It will certainly cause acl_get_file() to behave differently than previously. I?ve no idea how that will affect applications, though. > If there's a good reason to care we might have to go with your patch, > but if we can avoid it I'd prefer to keep things simple. One alternative is to simply wrap posix_acl_xattr_get() in fs/nfs/nfs3acl.c, and have it check the value of nfs_server_capable(inode, NFS_CAP_ACLS) before returning ENODATA. That?s rather ugly too... -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer