From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFFDDC43387 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 20:29:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A872F20879 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 20:29:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728993AbfAJU3O (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jan 2019 15:29:14 -0500 Received: from fieldses.org ([173.255.197.46]:48874 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727665AbfAJU3O (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jan 2019 15:29:14 -0500 Received: by fieldses.org (Postfix, from userid 2815) id A6DC363E; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 15:29:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 15:29:13 -0500 To: Rik Theys Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: status of NFS4 acls and umask Message-ID: <20190110202913.GD15492@fieldses.org> References: <0dd5344e-231f-1670-ffe1-5974b57dbaf3@esat.kuleuven.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0dd5344e-231f-1670-ffe1-5974b57dbaf3@esat.kuleuven.be> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) From: bfields@fieldses.org (J. Bruce Fields) Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 02:11:59PM +0100, Rik Theys wrote: > In https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-nfs/msg27799.html from 2011, Jeff > Layton describes how/why an NFSv4 ACL does not override the umask like a > posix ACL does. It mentions that it did not work back then and that > something might be done about that. > > What is the status now? When I look at the CentOS 7.6 client/server it > seems this is still not implemented. Is this fixed in newer upstream > versions? If not, are there any plans on finding a solution? I'ts fixed if your NFSv4.2 client and server implement https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8275, which upstream linux client and server now do. For RHEL I believe that change went into 7.4. If that's not working for you, you may need to check that the protocol version is 4.2. --b.