xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Patches for NFSv4 support

To: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Patches for NFSv4 support
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:18:58 +0000
Cc: agruen@xxxxxxx, Thomas Luzat <thomas.luzat@xxxxxxx>, acl-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, nfsv4@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050118091345.B1432214@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com>
References: <1105961990.5065.9.camel@mojo-jojo.home.luzat.com> <20050118091345.B1432214@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 09:13:45AM +1100, Nathan Scott wrote:
> Hi Andreas,
> 
> Got this request to merge these patches in today, but I'm unaware
> of any discussion regarding them as yet.  Have you looked through
> these at all?
> 
> >From a quick high-level sort of look, it seems like the NFS4 ACL is
> alot more complex than the POSIX ACL, so they've (wisely) used a
> separate attribute, libacl extensions and new tools - nfs4_getfacl
> and nfs4_setfacl.
>
> It seems the separate attribute is required, but perhaps the tools
> could be merged to provide a more transparent user interface?  Could
> do separate command line options, but it'd probably be better to
> query for each known ACL attribute name, and deal with each ACL type
> "on the fly" so to speak?  Hmm, setfacl would be tricky though, any
> ideas?  Or does it look OK as is?  They're not really very complex
> tools, so I suppose having new ones might be for the best?

NFSv4 ACLs are a horrible abomination.  I'd rather see them handled
in separate tools in a completely separate package so ordinary users
don't clutter up their systems with the NFSv4 mess.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>