Re: numeric UIDs

[Steve Dickson <SteveD@redhat.com>]

On 08/03/2010 06:42 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 06:31:15PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>> On Tue, 2010-08-03 at 18:23 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> 1) RFC3530 does allow a workaround for cases where the _server_ doesn't
>> have a mapping from uid/gid -> name. We just haven't implemented it on
>> Linux servers (or clients).
> 
> Yeah, somebody should.

I'm assuming you are talking about in the about page 47, third
paragraph that starts with "To provide a greater degree of compatibility..."
or are you referring to a different part of the RFC?


steved.