Re: numeric UIDs

["J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>]

On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 06:15:19PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-03 at 17:57 -0400, Jim Rees wrote:
> > Daniel.Muntz@emc.com wrote:
> > 
> >   I'll fourth this motion.  The spec goes out of its way to declare this a
> >   violation.  IMHO, the NFSv4.[0-n] specs should adopt the convention that a
> >   uid string consisting of [0-9]+ be interpreted as the string
> >   representation of a numeric UID--just as valid as a "user@domain" string.
> > 
> > I argued for this as an option in the early days but was shouted down.
> > Sorry I can't remember the details, it was many years ago.
> 
> Why is nobody talking about fixing AUTH_SYS? The alternative to using
> numeric uids/gids in NFS would be to use user@domain/group@domain in the
> credential.

I'm not sure what that does to address complaints like original
poster's:

	http://marc.info/?l=linux-nfs&m=128080127215350&w=2

And I'd like it to be possible to make the NFSv3->NFSv4 upgrade as
transparent as possible.

--b.

> 
> I believe that Nico had some proposals for RPCSEC_GSSv3 that addresses
> this issue. If adopted, it would even be backwards compatible with
> NFSv4.0.
> 
> Trond
>