Re: [RFC v3 42/45] nfs: Add richacl support

2016-07-15 Thread Andreas Grünbacher
Hi Andy, 2016-06-23 18:37 GMT+02:00 Weston Andros Adamson : >> On Apr 24, 2015, at 7:04 AM, Andreas Gruenbacher >> wrote: >> Changes nfs to support the "system.richacl" xattr instead of >> "system.nfs4_acl". >> >> The "system.nfs4_acl" xattr nfs uses directly exposes the on-the-wire format >>

RE: [RFC v3 42/45] nfs: Add richacl support

2016-06-23 Thread Frank Filz
> First, let me say thanks for all the work! We (Primary Data) have been using > samba with the vfs_richacl module reexporting an nfsv4.2 mount and things > are working pretty well. You can count on us for testing, bug fixing and code > review. > > Now for my question: It looks like this call to r

Re: [RFC v3 42/45] nfs: Add richacl support

2016-06-23 Thread Weston Andros Adamson
> On Apr 24, 2015, at 7:04 AM, Andreas Gruenbacher > wrote: > > Changes nfs to support the "system.richacl" xattr instead of > "system.nfs4_acl". > > The "system.nfs4_acl" xattr nfs uses directly exposes the on-the-wire format > of > NFSv4's acl attribute to user space. This has at least two

Re: [RFC v3 42/45] nfs: Add richacl support

2015-05-29 Thread Trond Myklebust
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Andreas Grünbacher wrote: > 2015-05-29 17:24 GMT+02:00 Trond Myklebust : >>> It seems unreasonable to me to expect applications other than special file >>> system maintenance tools to cater to such file system differences; there are >>> just too many file systems

RE: [RFC v3 42/45] nfs: Add richacl support

2015-05-29 Thread Frank Filz
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Andreas Grünbacher > wrote: > > 2015-05-29 15:15 GMT+02:00 Trond Myklebust > : > >> [reply reordered] > >> So having revisited the reasons why I chose the system.nfs4_acl > >> interface when we did NFSv4 ACLs, I'm not sure we should implement > >> system.richacl

Re: [RFC v3 42/45] nfs: Add richacl support

2015-05-29 Thread Andreas Grünbacher
2015-05-29 17:24 GMT+02:00 Trond Myklebust : >> It seems unreasonable to me to expect applications other than special file >> system maintenance tools to cater to such file system differences; there are >> just too many file systems out there for that to work. Instead, it >> would be better >> to u

Re: [RFC v3 42/45] nfs: Add richacl support

2015-05-29 Thread Trond Myklebust
Adding linux-api... On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Andreas Grünbacher wrote: > 2015-05-29 15:15 GMT+02:00 Trond Myklebust : >> [reply reordered] >> So having revisited the reasons why I chose the system.nfs4_acl >> interface when we did NFSv4 ACLs, I'm not sure we should implement >> system.ri

Re: [RFC v3 42/45] nfs: Add richacl support

2015-05-29 Thread Andreas Grünbacher
2015-05-29 15:15 GMT+02:00 Trond Myklebust : > [reply reordered] > So having revisited the reasons why I chose the system.nfs4_acl > interface when we did NFSv4 ACLs, I'm not sure we should implement > system.richacl for the NFS client at all. > > Your assertion that "when symbolic user@domain and

Re: [RFC v3 42/45] nfs: Add richacl support

2015-05-29 Thread Trond Myklebust
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Andreas Gruenbacher > wrote: >> Changes nfs to support the "system.richacl" xattr instead of >> "system.nfs4_acl". >> > > NACK. > > You may declare a userspace syscall ABI that is more than 10 years old >

Re: [RFC v3 42/45] nfs: Add richacl support

2015-05-28 Thread Andreas Grünbacher
2015-05-29 1:06 GMT+02:00 Trond Myklebust : > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Andreas Gruenbacher > wrote: >> Changes nfs to support the "system.richacl" xattr instead of >> "system.nfs4_acl". >> > > NACK. > > You may declare a userspace syscall ABI that is more than 10 years old > to be depreca

Re: [RFC v3 42/45] nfs: Add richacl support

2015-05-28 Thread Trond Myklebust
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > Changes nfs to support the "system.richacl" xattr instead of > "system.nfs4_acl". > NACK. You may declare a userspace syscall ABI that is more than 10 years old to be deprecated, but you are not allowed to remove it. Furthermore, yo