From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752913AbaBCPpw (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Feb 2014 10:45:52 -0500 Received: from mail-ig0-f169.google.com ([209.85.213.169]:40536 "EHLO mail-ig0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752556AbaBCPpv convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Feb 2014 10:45:51 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) Subject: Re: NFS client broken in Linus' tip From: Trond Myklebust In-Reply-To: <20140203145759.GA30263@infradead.org> Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 10:45:48 -0500 Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux , linuxnfs , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Viro Alexander , Christoph Hellwig , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Message-Id: <3003D7E5-93F8-4B32-ACDB-07ED3F6CE70D@primarydata.com> References: <20140130140834.GW15937@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20140130141405.GA23985@infradead.org> <20140130142752.GX15937@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20140130143208.GB9573@infradead.org> <20140130153812.GA15937@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <1391201970.6978.1.camel@leira.trondhjem.org> <20140203080325.GB806@infradead.org> <85AAFCF5-60EE-42E5-B103-37A4613C5947@primarydata.com> <20140203145759.GA30263@infradead.org> To: Christoph Hellwig X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Feb 3, 2014, at 9:57, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 09:17:30AM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: >> As I said above, that causes posix_acl_xattr_get() to return the wrong answer (ENODATA instead of EOPNOTSUPP). > > Is it really the wrong answer? How does userspace care wether this > server doesn't support ACLs at all or none is set? The resulting > behavior is the same. It will certainly cause acl_get_file() to behave differently than previously. I’ve no idea how that will affect applications, though. > If there's a good reason to care we might have to go with your patch, > but if we can avoid it I'd prefer to keep things simple. One alternative is to simply wrap posix_acl_xattr_get() in fs/nfs/nfs3acl.c, and have it check the value of nfs_server_capable(inode, NFS_CAP_ACLS) before returning ENODATA. That’s rather ugly too... -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: trond.myklebust@primarydata.com (Trond Myklebust) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 10:45:48 -0500 Subject: NFS client broken in Linus' tip In-Reply-To: <20140203145759.GA30263@infradead.org> References: <20140130140834.GW15937@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20140130141405.GA23985@infradead.org> <20140130142752.GX15937@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20140130143208.GB9573@infradead.org> <20140130153812.GA15937@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <1391201970.6978.1.camel@leira.trondhjem.org> <20140203080325.GB806@infradead.org> <85AAFCF5-60EE-42E5-B103-37A4613C5947@primarydata.com> <20140203145759.GA30263@infradead.org> Message-ID: <3003D7E5-93F8-4B32-ACDB-07ED3F6CE70D@primarydata.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Feb 3, 2014, at 9:57, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 09:17:30AM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: >> As I said above, that causes posix_acl_xattr_get() to return the wrong answer (ENODATA instead of EOPNOTSUPP). > > Is it really the wrong answer? How does userspace care wether this > server doesn't support ACLs at all or none is set? The resulting > behavior is the same. It will certainly cause acl_get_file() to behave differently than previously. I?ve no idea how that will affect applications, though. > If there's a good reason to care we might have to go with your patch, > but if we can avoid it I'd prefer to keep things simple. One alternative is to simply wrap posix_acl_xattr_get() in fs/nfs/nfs3acl.c, and have it check the value of nfs_server_capable(inode, NFS_CAP_ACLS) before returning ENODATA. That?s rather ugly too... -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer