Bug 1226788
| Summary: | [RFE] per-directory read-only access | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Community] GlusterFS | Reporter: | Csaba Henk <csaba> |
| Component: | core | Assignee: | bugs <bugs> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | mainline | CC: | bugs, csaba, pasik, smohan |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | FutureFeature, Triaged |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Enhancement | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2018-11-13 22:25:02 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Csaba Henk
2015-06-01 06:07:50 UTC
Could you explain why POSIX ACLs would not be sufficient? Maybe you can explain it best by the use-case you have. What kind of API do you expect? What are the requirements on how/when the directory should be read-only? I guess this should be recursive as well? The use case we needed this feature for is not relevant any more, we can close the bug. |