Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

acl(9): expound on NFSv4 constants' meanings
ClosedPublic

Authored by ngie on Aug 9 2026, 4:56 AM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
F175410086: D58736.diff
Sat, Oct 10, 4:15 PM
F175409855: D58736.id183748.diff
Sat, Oct 10, 4:12 PM
F175409811: D58736.id189315.diff
Sat, Oct 10, 4:11 PM
F175409801: D58736.id183709.diff
Sat, Oct 10, 4:11 PM
F175409772: D58736.id189338.diff
Sat, Oct 10, 4:11 PM
F175409762: D58736.id189328.diff
Sat, Oct 10, 4:11 PM
F175409234: D58736.diff
Sat, Oct 10, 4:05 PM
F175381167: D58736.id.diff
Sat, Oct 10, 10:42 AM

Details

Summary

This change adds missing documentation for various NFSv4 constants
supported by acl(9).

MFC after: 1 week

Test Plan

This missing documentation was discovered when reviewing APIs for pjdfstest: a PR put out by @asomers with a test that handles fine-grained NFSv4 ACL testing.

Diff Detail

Repository
rG FreeBSD src repository
Lint
Lint Not Applicable
Unit
Tests Not Applicable

Event Timeline

ngie requested review of this revision.Aug 9 2026, 4:56 AM
ngie added a reviewer: docs.
ngie added subscribers: asomers, pjd.

Handled typo separately in :main for cleanliness.

ngie retitled this revision from acl(9): fix a typo and expound on constants' meanings to acl(9): expound on NFSv4 constants' meanings.Aug 9 2026, 11:24 PM
ngie edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)

These definitions should be taken verbatim from the
RFC (8881). To be honest, the only folk who actually
know what they mean work for Microsoft.
(NFSv4 ACLs are based on Windows ACLs and what
is in the RFC is taken verbatim from a Microsoft
document.)

For example, ACL_DELETE can apply to regular files
as well as directories. Now, for a POSIX system, does
it refer to deletion of a link or deletion of the file when
the last link is removed? (The most recent RFC, which is
8881 does handle this. Older ones did not. Hint, Windows
doesn't have multiple hard links, so removal of a name is
the same as removal of the file's data.)

  • Change descriptions to better match RFC-8881.
  • Provide a link to RFC-8881 for further review.

Don't forget to update the date ".Dd".

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Sat, Oct 10, 1:23 AM

Remove dash in RFC (this seems to be status quo for RFC references).

This revision now requires review to proceed.Sat, Oct 10, 1:25 AM

Yea, sure. I've seen RFC#s written both ways.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Sat, Oct 10, 1:39 AM
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.