Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 12:45:19 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-2?Q?Edward_Tomasz_Napiera=B3a?= <trasz@freebsd.org> To: Tim Kientzle <tim@kientzle.com> Cc: "arch@" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Adapting FreeBSD to PSARC/2010/029. Message-ID: <6C83B4B3-EE48-4344-8B8E-BED7FB5E9646@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <0C4615AC-7F1F-4486-A431-500535B79B2E@kientzle.com> References: <7CE78D72-F349-443B-A635-8DC7B970C2E0@freebsd.org> <0C4615AC-7F1F-4486-A431-500535B79B2E@kientzle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Wiadomo=B6=E6 napisana przez Tim Kientzle w dniu 2010-10-30, o godz. = 07:17: > On Oct 29, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Edward Tomasz Napiera=B3a wrote: >> Currently, NFSv4 ACLs support in FreeBSD adheres to a draft by Sam = Falkner >> (it also complies with RFC3530, but that one leaves many things = undefined). >> Semantics for both UFS and ZFS is exactly the same. With ZFS v28, = the >> semantics has changed; see the link below for details: >>=20 >> = http://arc.opensolaris.org/caselog/PSARC/2010/029/20100126_mark.shellenbau= m >=20 > I guess I need to get back to work on the NFSv4 ACL support for = libarchive, eh? Obviously :-) > This is great. Together with the acl_is_trivial_np() test function, = the ACL > support now makes a lot more sense. >=20 > The chmod(2) interaction, in particular, is a huge improvement. I'm not sure about it. I mean, yes, it's simpler - it's actually = possible to understand and remember how it works now - but from what I remember, the problem with the old semantics and libarchive was that libarchive = tried to set file mode after restoring the ACL. With draft semantics, this resulted in malformed ACL. With PSARC semantics, this results in no ACL at all. -- If you cut off my head, what would I say? Me and my head, or me and my = body?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6C83B4B3-EE48-4344-8B8E-BED7FB5E9646>