Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 21:52:01 +0200 From: Martin Matuska <mm@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org>, Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@komquats.com>, Jan Beich <jbeich@vfemail.net>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r299448 - in head/sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris: common/acl uts/common/fs/zfs uts/common/sys Message-ID: <dfa23852-ed14-7282-9b65-56372ff7f1b7@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <49d3d34d-ba91-ebdf-497f-cbe1614bec53@FreeBSD.org> References: <201606191428.u5JESbbs053857@slippy.cwsent.com> <49d3d34d-ba91-ebdf-497f-cbe1614bec53@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I highly suggest dealing with this at OpenZFS: - opening an issue at Ilumos - discussing this on the developer@open-zfs.org mailing list On 19.06.2016 16:33, Alexander Motin wrote: > On 19.06.16 17:28, Cy Schubert wrote: >> In message <20160619080803.GA1638@brick>, Edward Tomasz=20 >> =3D?utf-8?Q?Napiera=3DC5=3D82 >> a?=3D writes: >>> On 0614T0232, Jan Beich wrote: >>>> Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org> writes: >>>> >>>>> Author: mav >>>>> Date: Wed May 11 13:43:20 2016 >>>>> New Revision: 299448 >>>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/299448 >>>>> >>>>> Log: >>>>> MFV r299442: 6762 POSIX write should imply DELETE_CHILD on direct= ories=20 >>> - and >>>>> some additional considerations >>>>> =20 >>>>> Reviewed by: Gordon Ross <gwr@nexenta.com> >>>>> Reviewed by: Yuri Pankov <yuri.pankov@nexenta.com> >>>>> Author: Kevin Crowe <kevin.crowe@nexenta.com> >>>>> =20 >>>>> openzfs/openzfs@d316fffc9c361532a482208561bbb614dac7f916 >>>> This commit confuses acl_is_trivial_np(3). Notice '+' in ls(1) and '= D' >>>> in getfacl(1) outputs. >>> It's not just that. >>> >>> Those changes: >>> >>> 1. Confuse acl_is_trivial_np(3), as you say. It's hard to fix in lib= c, >>> because they make trivial ACLs different for files and directories= , >>> and acl_is_trivial_np(3) has no way of telling which is which. >>> >>> 2. They make delete deny permission take precedence over the containi= ng >>> directory write allow permission, which is rather different from w= hat >>> people expect in unix systems, and is against the NFSv4 specificat= ion, >>> even though it might be a better fit for Windows. >> This is Windows behavior and inconsistent with the rest of FreeBSD and= any=20 >> UNIX or Linux system. >> >>> 3. They make umask apply to inherit_only permissions, and >>> >>> 4. I don't fully understand this one yet, but from the ACL regression= >>> test suite (which lives in tests/sys/acl/, and I'd appreciate peop= le >>> actually ran this before committing ACL-related changes) it looks >>> like it makes umask not apply to the stuff it should. >>> >>> The #1 could be fixed by making ZFS not setting delete_child on write= , >>> basically reverting to the previous behaviour in that aspect. As for= >>> the others... I'm not saying each one of those is wrong, but they >>> certainly warrant further discussion, especially #2 and #4. >> I think #2 is wrong behavior on any UNIX-like or POSIX system. >> >>> Basically, what I'm trying to say is that we should consider backing >>> this out for 11.0-RELEASE, reverting to the previous semantics, verif= ied >>> by passing the regression tests. >> Agreed. >> >> What in FreeBSD was this patch supposed to solve in the first place? > Growing divergence from OpenZFS upstream. I am not advocating this > patch, but it would be good, if possible, to not revert it completely, > but block wrong behavior with some minimal ifdefs to make further ZFS > merges easier. Help would be appreciated. ;) >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?dfa23852-ed14-7282-9b65-56372ff7f1b7>