PROPOSAL: extend UNIX_INFO2 to mark existence of ACLs

[Steve French]

Jeremy Allison wrote:

>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.
>  
>
And if more operating systems (other than Solaris and AIX and ...) move 
to NFSv4 ACLs it is not interesting to the POSIX extensions?!