PROPOSAL: extend UNIX_INFO2 to mark existence of ACLs

Jeremy Allison jra at
Fri Jan 25 05:33:45 GMT 2008

On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 09:57:08PM -0600, Christopher R. Hertel wrote:
> I don't think that they're "arguments", per. se.  We're just trying to get a
> handle on what James is suggesting and how it might interact with other file
> systems.

This is a CIFS *POSIX* layer. In defining this I don't care about
file systems that are non-POSIX. Screw them.

> There are several flavors of ACL and a lot of schemes for mapping settings
> from one type to another.  MacOS, for instance, uses a POSIX-style API to
> access and control ACLs with settings that are similar to Windows ACLs.  I
> know of at least one file system that keeps both POSIX permission bits (not
> full ACLs) *and* Windows security descriptors.

If it's not a POSIX ACL, it's not something of interest to the
CIFS POSIX extensions.

Let's stop the arguments and add the bit George (and Steve)


More information about the samba-technical mailing list