On Feb 3, 2014, at 9:57, Christoph Hellwig <h...@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 09:17:30AM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: >> As I said above, that causes posix_acl_xattr_get() to return the wrong >> answer (ENODATA instead of EOPNOTSUPP). > > Is it really the wrong answer? How does userspace care wether this > server doesn't support ACLs at all or none is set? The resulting > behavior is the same. It will certainly cause acl_get_file() to behave differently than previously. I’ve no idea how that will affect applications, though. > If there's a good reason to care we might have to go with your patch, > but if we can avoid it I'd prefer to keep things simple. One alternative is to simply wrap posix_acl_xattr_get() in fs/nfs/nfs3acl.c, and have it check the value of nfs_server_capable(inode, NFS_CAP_ACLS) before returning ENODATA. That’s rather ugly too... -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
