PROPOSAL: extend UNIX_INFO2 to mark existence of ACLs

James Peach jorgar at
Fri Jan 25 16:46:15 GMT 2008

On 24/01/2008, Jeremy Allison <jra at> 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.

No, that's not what I'm asking for and it's not what we need for the
OS X client.

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

I'm going to start a new thread with a slightly modified proposal that
addresses our need a bit better.

Please don't implement anything until you read it :)

James Peach | jorgar at

More information about the samba-technical mailing list