Re: [RFC] POSIX ACL kernel infrastructure

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>]

On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 02:22:49PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> I read this as `Why are you not returning the permissions nfsd should see in 
> struct, which the inode->getattr IOP fills?'. Please correct me if this is 
> not what you wanted to say.

I meant adding an acl field to struct kstat that is supposed to be filled
by ->getattr.

> The usual callers of getattr should see the unmasked permissions; it's only 
> nfsd that needs this special treatment, and only on filesystems that have 
> ACLs enabled. The getattr IOP is used by others as well.

So why the is a new IOP better in that respect? 

> If you had adding an extra field to struct kstat in mind, this just seems too 
> intrusive to me for solving the nfsd problem. The problem will go away in the 
> future when all NFSv3 clients are using the ACCESS RPC, anyway. It's just a 
> hack right now.

So you want to add two inode operations for a hack that is only needed to
support old NFS clients?  Do you have any profiling data that shows major
overhead when going through the xattr layer?