From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.27]:46699 "EHLO out3-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752096AbcGAT3l convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jul 2016 15:29:41 -0400 From: Nikolaus Rath To: Seth Forshee Cc: fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Miklos Szeredi , "Eric W. Biederman" Subject: Re: [RFC] fuse: Support posix ACLs References: <20160629190731.GF53123@ubuntu-hedt> Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2016 12:29:24 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20160629190731.GF53123@ubuntu-hedt> (Seth Forshee's message of "Wed, 29 Jun 2016 14:07:31 -0500") Message-ID: <87k2h59my3.fsf@thinkpad.rath.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Jun 29 2016, Seth Forshee wrote: > Eric and I are working towards adding support for fuse mounts in > non-init user namespaces. Towards that end we'd like to add ACL support > to fuse as this will allow for a cleaner implementation overall. Below > is an initial patch to support this. I'd like to get some general > feedback on this patch and ask a couple of specific questions. > > There are some indications that fuse supports ACLs on the userspace side > when default_permissions is not used (though I'm not seeing how that > works). Will these changes conflict with that support, and if how do we > avoid those conflicts? > I think as long as the kernel interprets ACLs only if default_permission is used, you should be fine. Best, -Nikolaus -- GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«