From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDF01C43603 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 03:42:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 944E42176D for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 03:42:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726994AbfLQDmz (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Dec 2019 22:42:55 -0500 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:37232 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726526AbfLQDmz (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Dec 2019 22:42:55 -0500 Received: from viro by ZenIV.linux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1ih3l6-0006jg-Ri; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 03:42:52 +0000 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 03:42:52 +0000 From: Al Viro To: Miklos Szeredi Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/12] vfs: don't parse "posixacl" option Message-ID: <20191217034252.GT4203@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20191128155940.17530-1-mszeredi@redhat.com> <20191128155940.17530-12-mszeredi@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191128155940.17530-12-mszeredi@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15) Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 04:59:39PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > Unlike the others, this is _not_ a standard option accepted by mount(8). > > In fact SB_POSIXACL is an internal flag, and accepting MS_POSIXACL on the > mount(2) interface is possibly a bug. > > The only filesystem that apparently wants to handle the "posixacl" option > is 9p, but it has special handling of that option besides setting > SB_POSIXACL. Huh? For e.g. ceph having -o posixacl and -o acl are currently equivalent; your patch would seem to break that, wouldn't it?