On Fri, 2016-03-11 at 09:07 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 06:01:34AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 09:17:05AM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher
wrote:

quoted

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"?

quoted

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.

It is a step forward, but being able to store SIDs in the ACL, would be
a much better one.

Simo.

--b.

quoted

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

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" 
in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html