From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx.manguebit.com (mx.manguebit.com [167.235.159.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00EFF1FF5EF for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2025 20:56:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=167.235.159.17 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739393805; cv=none; b=FeOCEaHHocAgF2Y0m5qGpvkpiMefiPdj4SumY6GnhOG9TR80cAi6Io7kPdeSPmEgyqD3A+0/5CO99d/ERYj5A10Bz79uLDA64uphHB0sOC1I0+rs6BqsO+NRGaok307+h6NWbgClF+Myb+wLGew4agGF4r7bA5sclmkxMKYe1e4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739393805; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Ver/u5L3/WcBHa3ccZxMFxb1Aq8SYVuVwrMRcbM2hdg=; h=Message-ID:From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=BVm5xwL1/ZwLOYUkfHWU/KHwrtHrEdHlN3ISEudT/EH2JsKQoVPV4Q+gpp+hLA6cBV6JUOHr2KaNI6ytIeDxqoexSzFkWU7iDHiMSKrQlwvHSYHc89qTWzLQ4qpt+eufxQAlXK8FFTZNglAYl5K0NbnAnp8yi7foS0pHX7VDNDE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=manguebit.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=manguebit.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=manguebit.com header.i=@manguebit.com header.b=Ws6tsJpV; arc=none smtp.client-ip=167.235.159.17 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=manguebit.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=manguebit.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=manguebit.com header.i=@manguebit.com header.b="Ws6tsJpV" Message-ID: <2bdf635d3ebd000480226ee8568c32fb@manguebit.com> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=manguebit.com; s=dkim; t=1739393375; 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; bh=QAhQ41hsO8HG3YzAE+E1vV6KmZRuDxC48acTFWz+7s4=; b=Ws6tsJpVycjXCXtfiAIQpYS9G9wJfMHpsIcJQfzepyb+B7FIhlGIJFYslJ/E8Eu7qg4iHi NDk+fhbX1LojyeEF3Tx2QwXRwuwcLtUMRBO532EB56Nm8k7KmvjIaO6cVD3HMqfcuC0Lfu 8H8MTBwIt6pyA1ts9q7BdKvpsRj+39SHcohpXtx19Um0W6laIobfh6Mrs5Zxz+kqGK0LJ+ 9DrD9RgdpPkb29a2BYrXw3wPE4TMcZix1qwUt5ZR8bTWqk6+8bTRHKA4YxuJM2knQH9LPj Rw6A7z3thjep+ulNp/ozbLk/cUBRdYRP5dLCIM67HlSFQn/KI7bG8NqdbY8ABw== From: Paulo Alcantara To: Steve French Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, Pali =?utf-8?Q?Roh=C3=A1r?= Subject: Regression with getcifsacl(1) in v6.14-rc1 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 17:49:31 -0300 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Steve, The commit 438e2116d7bd ("cifs: Change translation of STATUS_PRIVILEGE_NOT_HELD to -EPERM") regressed getcifsacl(1) because it expects -EIO to be returned from getxattr(2) when the client can't read system.cifs_ntsd_full attribute and then fall back to system.cifs_acl attribute. Either -EIO or -EPERM is wrong for getxattr(2), but that's a different problem, though. Reproduced against samba-4.22 server.