On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 06:01:27PM -0400, Lord Isildur wrote:

> Many people need ACLs. Theyre not inherently bad.

I agree...

> ...
> them in such a way to meet the demand that an acl-enabled ffs could be 
> mounted and used, read-write, on a system with no acl support, without 
> damaging or corrupting the acl information,

I am not sure that this is desirable. Normally, you do not want a system to
access a volume which it doesn't understand - we don't want, say, 4.2BSD
systems to access long uid/gid filesystems, either - because even if it
doesn't corrupt ACLs, it might give away access rights that were not intended.

In this special case - do ACLs always _add_ access permissions, or can they
deny access permissions that the old user/group/other system alone would grant?

> and also a non-acl ffs be 
> used on a system with an acl aware kernel, which does not cause the addition
> of acl features to the filesystem but is still useable by that acl aware
> system, just sans acls.

Thats fine - and actually, it would be very hard to avoid this property. 

Regards,
	-is