Re: [PATCH v18 00/22] Richacls (Core and Ext4)
From: Volker Lendecke
Date: Tue Mar 15 2016 - 16:39:17 EST
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
> 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.