svn commit: r299448 - in head/sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris: common/acl uts/common/fs/zfs uts/common/sys

[Martin Matuska]

I highly suggest dealing with this at OpenZFS:
- opening an issue at Ilumos
- discussing this on the developer at open-zfs.org mailing list

On 19.06.2016 16:33, Alexander Motin wrote:
> On 19.06.16 17:28, Cy Schubert wrote:
>> In message <20160619080803.GA1638 at brick>, Edward Tomasz 
>> =?utf-8?Q?Napiera=C5=82
>> a?= writes:
>>> On 0614T0232, Jan Beich wrote:
>>>> Alexander Motin <mav at FreeBSD.org> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Author: mav
>>>>> Date: Wed May 11 13:43:20 2016
>>>>> New Revision: 299448
>>>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/299448
>>>>>
>>>>> Log:
>>>>>   MFV r299442: 6762 POSIX write should imply DELETE_CHILD on directories 
>>> - and
>>>>>   some additional considerations
>>>>>   
>>>>>   Reviewed by: Gordon Ross <gwr at nexenta.com>
>>>>>   Reviewed by: Yuri Pankov <yuri.pankov at nexenta.com>
>>>>>   Author: Kevin Crowe <kevin.crowe at nexenta.com>
>>>>>   
>>>>>   openzfs/openzfs at d316fffc9c361532a482208561bbb614dac7f916
>>>> This commit confuses acl_is_trivial_np(3). Notice '+' in ls(1) and 'D'
>>>> in getfacl(1) outputs.
>>> It's not just that.
>>>
>>> Those changes:
>>>
>>> 1. Confuse acl_is_trivial_np(3), as you say.  It's hard to fix in libc,
>>>    because they make trivial ACLs different for files and directories,
>>>    and acl_is_trivial_np(3) has no way of telling which is which.
>>>
>>> 2. They make delete deny permission take precedence over the containing
>>>    directory write allow permission, which is rather different from what
>>>    people expect in unix systems, and is against the NFSv4 specification,
>>>    even though it might be a better fit for Windows.
>> This is Windows behavior and inconsistent with the rest of FreeBSD and any 
>> UNIX or Linux system.
>>
>>> 3. They make umask apply to inherit_only permissions, and
>>>
>>> 4. I don't fully understand this one yet, but from the ACL regression
>>>    test suite (which lives in tests/sys/acl/, and I'd appreciate people
>>>    actually ran this before committing ACL-related changes) it looks
>>>    like it makes umask not apply to the stuff it should.
>>>
>>> The #1 could be fixed by making ZFS not setting delete_child on write,
>>> basically reverting to the previous behaviour in that aspect.  As for
>>> the others...  I'm not saying each one of those is wrong, but they
>>> certainly warrant further discussion, especially #2 and #4.
>> I think #2 is wrong behavior on any UNIX-like or POSIX system.
>>
>>> Basically, what I'm trying to say is that we should consider backing
>>> this out for 11.0-RELEASE, reverting to the previous semantics, verified
>>> by passing the regression tests.
>> Agreed.
>>
>> What in FreeBSD was this patch supposed to solve in the first place?
> Growing divergence from OpenZFS upstream.  I am not advocating this
> patch, but it would be good, if possible, to not revert it completely,
> but block wrong behavior with some minimal ifdefs to make further ZFS
> merges easier.  Help would be appreciated. ;)
>