| Message ID | 20200505095915.11275-12-mszeredi@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | vfs patch queue | expand |
On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 11:59:14AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > Unlike the others, this is _not_ a standard option accepted by mount(8). > > In fact SB_POSIXACL is an internal flag, and accepting MS_POSIXACL on the > mount(2) interface is possibly a bug. > > The only filesystem that apparently wants to handle the "posixacl" option > is 9p, but it has special handling of that option besides setting > SB_POSIXACL. Looks good: Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
diff --git a/fs/fs_context.c b/fs/fs_context.c index 07e09bcf256c..82019569d493 100644 --- a/fs/fs_context.c +++ b/fs/fs_context.c @@ -42,7 +42,6 @@ static const struct constant_table common_set_sb_flag[] = { { "dirsync", SB_DIRSYNC }, { "lazytime", SB_LAZYTIME }, { "mand", SB_MANDLOCK }, - { "posixacl", SB_POSIXACL }, { "ro", SB_RDONLY }, { "sync", SB_SYNCHRONOUS }, { },
Unlike the others, this is _not_ a standard option accepted by mount(8). In fact SB_POSIXACL is an internal flag, and accepting MS_POSIXACL on the mount(2) interface is possibly a bug. The only filesystem that apparently wants to handle the "posixacl" option is 9p, but it has special handling of that option besides setting SB_POSIXACL. Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com> --- fs/fs_context.c | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)