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

- From: Christoph Hellwig \<hch@infradead.org\>
- Date: 2016-03-15 07:11:53 
- List: linux-ext4
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-ext4/2016/03/105754
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-nfs/2016/02/104174/t.md

```text
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.

> > especially by adding allow and deny ACE at the same time.
> 
> I remember from past discussions that a permission model like the
> POSIX ACL model that doesn't have DENY ACEs would be more to your
> liking. This argument is dead from the start though: NFSv4 ACLs
> without DENY ACEs cannot represent basic file permissions like 0604
> where the owning group has fewer permissions than others, for example
> (see the richaclex(7) man page). We would end up with a permission
> model that isn't even compatible with the traditional POSIX file
> permission model, one which nobody else implements or cares about.

So let's stick to the model that we already have.

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