[PATCH 2/2] vfs_ceph: implement ACL callbacks

[Yan, Zheng]

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 12:02, Ira Cooper <ira at wakeful.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Jeremy Allison <jra at samba.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 05:15:41PM +0800, Yan, Zheng wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 16, 2016, at 16:09, Ira Cooper <ira at wakeful.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > This code is awful in the gluster module, I've commented that we need to fix it and get rid of it.
> > >
> > > The #defines, and the structure clearly belong in system or ceph/gluster headerfiles.
> > >
> > > So I'm going to NAK this, unless I get strong objections.  We should discuss with the ceph community what the right thing to do is.  In this case: Copy gluster isn't it ;).
> >
> > Yes, the code is ugly.
> >
> > There is a module vfs_posixacl.cc , which gets acl xattr from local filesystem. How about updating that module, make it get acl xattr from vfs module below it. By this way, we don’t need to implement acl related functions in ceph vfs module.
> 
> Hmmm. vfs_posixacl.c is meant to be the
> lowest layer on top of the filesystem
> so I dont think changing that is a good
> idea.
> 
> Ira, the code is ugly in the gluster VFS
> here, but I would argue that implementing
> the sys_acl_XXX() functions into ceph
> is probably the right way to insulate
> ceph from having to do its own ACL mapping
> in the same way it's done in gluster.
> 
> What other plan do you have in mind ?
> 
> One other thought - both gluster and
> ceph need to prepare for RichACLs going
> into xaddrs, which is slowly making its
> way through the kernel review process.
> 
> i'd say "use libacl if we can."  If we can't, my thoughts are:
> 
> One copy of crappy code beats two.
> 
> If ceph has its own acl handling, use it.  Same for Gluster.
> 
> And I agree on RichACL.  Though I think that library is constructed so we can pass the binary acl in and out, so there's no excuse not just to have a "RichACL" layer, in samba, and some VFS calls to deal with exactly how the filesystems deal with it.
> 
> I don't know if cephfs is planning RichACL support, that's another valid question :).

richacl code is at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/6341 <https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/6341>. We are waiting until richacl kernel patches get merged 

Regards
Yan, Zheng


> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -Ira
>