On 2016-03-15 at 21:17 +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 08:45:14AM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:11:03AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > People have long learned that we only have 'alloc' permissions. Any
> > > model that mixes allow and d
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 02:05:16PM -0600, Steve French wrote:
>> A loosely related question is what can be done for tools around existing
>> interfaces for ACLs. I recently found out NTFS-3g has this xattr:
>>
>> static const char nf
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Volker Lendecke
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 08:45:14AM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:11:03AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> > People have long learned that we only have 'alloc' permissions. Any
>> > model that mixes allow and
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 08:45:14AM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:11:03AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > People have long learned that we only have 'alloc' permissions. Any
> > model that mixes allow and deny ACE is a mistake.
>
> People can also learn and change t
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:11:03AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 05:11:51PM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > > while breaking a lot of assumptions,
> >
> > The model is designed specifically to be compliant with the POSIX
> > permission model. What assumptions are
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 02:05:16PM -0600, Steve French wrote:
> A loosely related question is what can be done for tools around existing
> interfaces for ACLs. I recently found out NTFS-3g has this xattr:
>
> static const char nf_ns_xattr_ntfs_acl[] = "system.ntfs_acl";
>
> which allows you
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 05:11:51PM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > while breaking a lot of assumptions,
>
> The model is designed specifically to be compliant with the POSIX
> permission model. What assumptions are you talking about?
People have long learned that we only have 'alloc' permis
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 09:07:57AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> Could you explain what you mean by "adding allow and deny ACE at the
> same time"?
NFSv4/rich ACLs have both ALLOW and DENY ACE, which is contrary to
the model how we've operated since the dawn of time.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:02:13AM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 02:05:16PM -0600, Steve French wrote:
> >> Sounds like I need to quickly rework the SMB3 ACL helper functions
> >> for cifs.ko
> >>
> >> Also d
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 02:05:16PM -0600, Steve French wrote:
>> Sounds like I need to quickly rework the SMB3 ACL helper functions
>> for cifs.ko
>>
>> Also do you know where is the current version of the corresponding
>> vfs_richacl for
>
On Fri, 2016-03-11 at 09:07 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 06:01:34AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 09:17:05AM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Al,
> > >
> > > could you please make sure you are happy with the current ve
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 02:05:16PM -0600, Steve French wrote:
> Sounds like I need to quickly rework the SMB3 ACL helper functions
> for cifs.ko
>
> Also do you know where is the current version of the corresponding
> vfs_richacl for
> Samba which works with the current RichACL format?
I have a p
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Andreas Gruenbacher
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Christoph Hellwig w
> The model is designed specifically to be compliant with the POSIX
> permission model. What assumptions are you talking about?
>
>> especially by adding allow and deny ACE at the s
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 09:17:05AM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
>> Al,
>>
>> could you please make sure you are happy with the current version of the
>> richacl patch queue for the next merge window?
>
> I'm still not happy.
>
> For
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 06:01:34AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 09:17:05AM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > Al,
> >
> > could you please make sure you are happy with the current version of the
> > richacl patch queue for the next merge window?
>
> I'm still not h
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 09:17:05AM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> Al,
>
> could you please make sure you are happy with the current version of the
> richacl patch queue for the next merge window?
I'm still not happy.
For one I still see no reason to merge this broken ACL model at all.
It pr
16 matches
Mail list logo
