# Re: \[PATCH v18 00/22\] Richacls (Core and Ext4)

- From: J. Bruce Fields \<hidden\>
- Date: 2016-03-11 14:07:59 
- List: linux-api
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-api/2016/03/105760
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-nfs/2016/02/104174/t.md

```text
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 happy.
> 
> For one I still see no reason to merge this broken ACL model at all.
> It provides our actualy Linux users no benefit at all, while breaking
> a lot of assumptions, especially by adding allow and deny ACE at the
> same sime.

Could you explain what you mean by "adding allow and deny ACE at the
same time"?

> It also doesn't help with the issue that the main thing it's trying
> to be compatible with (Windows) actually uses a fundamentally different
> identifier to apply the ACLs to - as long as you're still limited
> to users and groups and not guids we'll still have that mapping problem
> anyway.

Agreed, but, one step at a time?  My impression is that the Samba people
still consider this a step forward for Linux compatibility.

--b.

> 
> But besides that fundamental question on the purpose of it I also
> don't think the code is suitable, more in the individual patches.

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
```