Trond Myklebust [trondmy@gmail.com] wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 11:19 -0600, Malahal Naineni wrote:
> > Currently we support ACLs if the NFS server file system supports both
> > ALLOW and DENY ACE types. This patch makes the Linux client work with
> > ACLs even if the server supports only 'ALLOW' ACE type.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Malahal Naineni <malahal@us.ibm.com>
> > ---
> >  fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 5 ++---
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> > index 15052b8..e3b8fa6 100644
> > --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> > +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> > @@ -4321,9 +4321,8 @@ static int nfs4_proc_renew(struct nfs_client *clp, struct rpc_cred *cred)
> >  
> >  static inline int nfs4_server_supports_acls(struct nfs_server *server)
> >  {
> > -	return (server->caps & NFS_CAP_ACLS)
> > -		&& (server->acl_bitmask & ACL4_SUPPORT_ALLOW_ACL)
> > -		&& (server->acl_bitmask & ACL4_SUPPORT_DENY_ACL);
> > +	return server->caps & NFS_CAP_ACLS &&
> > +		server->acl_bitmask & ACL4_SUPPORT_ALLOW_ACL;
> >  }
> >  
> >  /* Assuming that XATTR_SIZE_MAX is a multiple of PAGE_SIZE, and that
> 
> Wait... Having looked at the code a bit more carefully. Is there any
> reason to set NFS_CAP_ACLS at all if we don't see server->acl_bitmask &
> ACL4_SUPPORT_ALLOW_ACL?

I don't see any. Something like the attached patch should work!

Regards, Malahal.