Hello Nathan,
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 23:13, Nathan Scott wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 12:39:50PM +0100, Thomas Luzat wrote:
> > Package: acl
> > Version: 2.2.26-1
> > Severity: wishlist
> >
> > nfs-utils 1.0.7-1 supports NFSv4 now. To make the support more useful
> > please consider applying the acl patch(es) from
> >
> > http://www.citi.umich.edu/projects/nfsv4/linux/
> >
> > Thanks!
>
> 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?
I haven't seen this code, yet.
> 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.
NFSv4 ACLs and POSIX ACLs are totally different. As things stand I'm not
very sympathetic about NFSv4 ACLs, and by consequence about NFSv4. NFSv4
ACLs by themselves match CIFS ACLs much more closely than POSIX ACLs,
and the mapping between (a subset of) NFSv4 ACLs and POSIX ACLs is
outright horrible. It seems a recent draft of the mapping proposal can
be found here:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nfsv4-acl-mapping-02.txt
We may or may not want to put the user-space utilities into the same
package; there probably is quite a small overlap.
> 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?
Not sure; I may be able to play with that stuff in the next weeks --
with low priority.
Cheers,
--
Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@xxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, SUSE LINUX GMBH
|