From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:60348 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750921AbcF2Uau (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jun 2016 16:30:50 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: "Michael j Theall" Cc: Seth Forshee , fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Miklos Szeredi References: <20160629190731.GF53123@ubuntu-hedt> Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:18:24 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Michael j. Theall's message of "Wed, 29 Jun 2016 14:24:14 -0500") Message-ID: <87vb0rhhpr.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [fuse-devel] [RFC] fuse: Support posix ACLs Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: "Michael j Theall" writes: > Going by the patch I posted a couple of years ago: > https://sourceforge.net/p/fuse/mailman/message/33033653/ > > The only hole I see in your patch is that in setattr() you are not > updating the cached acl if the ATTR_MODE is updated. The other major > difference is that my version uses the get_acl/set_acl inode > operations but you use that plus the xattr handlers. I'm not > up-to-speed on the kernel so I'm not sure if you actually need to > implement both. That makes an interesting question. Is it desirable to keep inode->i_mode in sync with the posix acls in fuse or should a filesystem that supports posix acls worry about that? The fact that MS_POSIXACL is set indicates that fuse supports posix acls. Have posix acls never worked then? Eric