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

- List: linux-api
- 3 messages, 3 authors
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-api/2016/03/106411/t

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

- From: Jeremy Allison \<hidden\>
- Date: 2016-03-15 15:45:14 
- Message: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-api/2016/03/106411.md

```text
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 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 :-).
```

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

- From: Volker Lendecke \<hidden\>
- Date: 2016-03-15 20:39:12 
- Message: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-api/2016/03/105752.md

```text
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 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
```

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

- From: Steve French \<hidden\>
- Date: 2016-03-16 03:28:44 
- Message: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-api/2016/03/105751.md

```text
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Volker Lendecke
[ref] 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 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
```