[PATCH v4 04/30] fs: add new get acl method

[Miklos Szeredi]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 at 09:41, Christian Brauner <brauner at kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 08:31:47AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 at 09:15, Christian Brauner <brauner at kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > > We're just talking about thet fact that
> > > {g,s}etxattr(system.posix_acl_{access,default}) work on cifs but
> > > getting acls based on inode operations isn't supported. Consequently you
> > > can't use the acls for permission checking in the vfs for cifs. If as
> > > you say below that's intentional because the client doesn't perform
> > > access checks then that's probably fine.
> >
> > Now I just need to wrap my head around how this interacts with all the
> > uid/gid transformations.
>
> Currently it doesn't because cifs doesn't support idmapped mounts.
>
> >
> > Do these (userns, mnt_userns) even make sense for the case of remotely
> > checked permissions?
>
> Namespaces are local concepts. They are relevant for permission checking
> and are e.g., used to generate a {g,u}id that may be sent to a server. A
> concrete example would be a network filesystems that would change the
> ownership of a file and the client calls it's ->setattr() inode
> operation. The fs_userns and/or mnt_userns is used to generate a raw
> {g,u}id value to be sent to the server (So all netns call from_kuid()
> ultimately to send a raw {g,u}id over the wire. The server can then do
> whatever additional permission checking it wants based on that {g,u}id.
>
> For acls it's the same. We use the namespaces to generate the raw values
> and send them to the server that stores them. Either in the acl uapi
> format or if the netfs has a custom format for acls or translate them
> into it's own acl format. The server can then use them for permission
> checking however it wants. But if the server allows the client to
> retrieve them during permission checking in the vfs then we need to
> translate that raw format from the server into the proper local format
> again at which point the namespaces are relevant again.
> I hope that helped.

Yes, I got it now.

Thanks,
Miklos