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

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:

quoted

quoted

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' permissions.  Any
model that mixes allow and deny ACE is a mistake.

People can also learn and change though :-). One of the
biggest complaints people deploying Samba on Linux have is the
incompatible ACL models.

Whilst I have sympathy with your intense dislike of the
Windows ACL model, this comes down to the core of "who
do we serve ?" IMHO we should serve the users (although
I must confess I'd look awful in a TRON suit :-).

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:

quoted

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 though :-). One of the
biggest complaints people deploying Samba on Linux have is the
incompatible ACL models.

Just to confirm: I see this a lot in the field. NFSv4 ACLs, while not a
perfect match for NTFS ACLs are a lot closer much more usable to people
who want to serve Windows clients.

Also in the pure linux world there is a lot that you can not express
with just rwx, sgid, sticky bits and friends. If you want the additional
functionality of the richacl bits, I would call it a big mistake to
omit negative aces, if just for the reason not to create yet another
ACLs flavor.

Whilst I have sympathy with your intense dislike of the
Windows ACL model, this comes down to the core of "who
do we serve ?"

The world has enough confusion around ACL semanics, please do not add
more to it by creating your own model of the day.

Volker

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Volker Lendecke
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 08:45:14AM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:11:03AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

quoted

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 though :-). One of the
biggest complaints people deploying Samba on Linux have is the
incompatible ACL models.

Just to confirm: I see this a lot in the field. NFSv4 ACLs, while not a
perfect match for NTFS ACLs are a lot closer much more usable to people
who want to serve Windows clients.

Yes (and presumably Macs as well)



-- 
Thanks,

Steve

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