Current approaches to ACL handling

[J. Bruce Fields]

On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 02:53:36PM -0500, Christopher R. Hertel wrote:
> If I understood Alexander's suggestion, it was to implement Windows
> ACLs in the filesystem/kernel.  That would mean that Samba would no
> longer need to adapt because the semantics would be what we'd
> expect.
> 
> On the other hand, how would the kernel go about enforcing some of
> the more obscure permissions for non-Samba processes?  How would NFS
> interpret the ACLs?  What about local processes?  Which permissions
> would be exposed to the local user and which would not?  The
> adaptations would have to move, probably into the kernel with the
> new ACL type.

I think this is the most recent posting of the richacl patches:

	http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1206630/

It includes enforcement of new permission bits; e.g., write attributes:

	http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1206630/focus=1206636

delete and delete child:

	http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1206630/focus=1206638

file vs directory creation:

	http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1206630/focus=1206642

So they are of course intended to be exposed and enforced consistently
against local, NFS, and Samba users.

Review is welcome; if you see anything specific missing, please let us
know.

--b.