@@ -2345,11 +2345,14 @@ void nfs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, struct nfs_mount_info *mount_info)
if (data && data->bsize)
sb->s_blocksize = nfs_block_size(data->bsize, &sb->s_blocksize_bits);
- if (server->nfs_client->rpc_ops->version != 2) {
+ if (NFS_SB(sb)->caps & NFS_CAP_ACLS) {
/* The VFS shouldn't apply the umask to mode bits. We will do
* so ourselves when necessary.
*/
sb->s_flags |= SB_POSIXACL;
+ }
+
+ if (server->nfs_client->rpc_ops->version != 2) {
sb->s_time_gran = 1;
sb->s_export_op = &nfs_export_ops;
}
@@ -2375,7 +2378,7 @@ static void nfs_clone_super(struct super_block *sb,
sb->s_time_gran = 1;
sb->s_export_op = old_sb->s_export_op;
- if (server->nfs_client->rpc_ops->version != 2) {
+ if (NFS_SB(sb)->caps & NFS_CAP_ACLS) {
/* The VFS shouldn't apply the umask to mode bits. We will do
* so ourselves when necessary.
*/
This sets MS_POSIXACL only if ACL support is really enabled, instead of always setting MS_POSIXACL if the NFS protocol version theoretically supports ACL. The code comment says "We will [apply the umask] ourselves", but that happens in posix_acl_create() only if the kernel has POSIX ACL support. Without it, posix_acl_create() is an empty dummy function. So let's not pretend we will apply the umask if we can already know that we will never. This fixes a problem where the umask is always ignored in the NFS client when compiled without CONFIG_FS_POSIX_ACL. This is a 4 year old regression caused by commit 013cdf1088d723 which itself was not completely wrong, but failed to consider all the side effects by misdesigned VFS code. Signed-off-by: Max Kellermann <mk@cm4all.com> --- fs/nfs/super.c | 7 +++++-- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)