linux-nfs.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
To: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
	Steve Dickson <SteveD@redhat.com>, Spelic <spelic@shiftmail.org>,
	linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: NFSv4 behaviour on unknown users
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 22:10:02 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1291173002.7694.7.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101201135740.0d3b5948@notabene.brown>

On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 13:57 +1100, Neil Brown wrote:
> I have a strong memory from about 7 years ago of Brian Pawlowski saying - or
> possibly being quoted as saying - that the user information in NFS requests
> (the stuff that idmapper handles) is totally independent of the RPC
> authentication mechanism being used (the AUTH_SYS / RPCSEC_GSS stuff).
> 
> I always thought that was nonsense, but I wasn't in a position to discuss it
> at the time for reasons that I really don't recall.
> 
> If users are being authorised using numbers (AUTH_SYS) then it only (to me)
> makes sense to communication all identies as numbers.
> And if users are being authenticated as name@domain strings, then it only
> make sense to communicate all identities as name@domain.
> 
> But this path is not the path for NFSv4 followed.
> 
> I've very glad to see Linux NFS allowing numeric IDs "on the wire" and hope
> to see this very sensible approach widely adopted (where AUTH_SYS is used).
> I think it would be great if nfsd did the same thing completely in-kernel
> without reference to idmapd.  Accepting either numeric or domain-based is
> trivial.  Choosing which to send on a per-client basis might be a challenge,
> but probably not a big one.
> 
> 
> I wonder if Brian remembers saying anything like that...

I think you need to take beepy's words in context here: as I believe I
mentioned previously, RFC3530 (and its predecessor RFC3010) assumed
everyone would be using principals for authenticating, either through
RPCSEC_GSS w/ krb5, or through the SPKM/Lipkey mechanism. So sure was
everyone of this, that AUTH_SYS isn't even mentioned as a valid
authentication mechanism, and so nobody had to worry about the
consequences of using it.

The fact we still use AUTH_SYS today is, BTW, very much a result of the
failure of SPKM/Lipkey to deliver on its promise of strong
authentication with no extra infrastructure requirements. If it had, we
wouldn't be needing this hack.

Cheers
  Trond

-- 
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer

NetApp
Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com
www.netapp.com


  reply	other threads:[~2010-12-01  3:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-11-29 18:12 NFSv4 behaviour on unknown users Spelic
2010-11-29 18:22 ` Trond Myklebust
2010-11-29 18:38   ` Spelic
2010-11-29 19:01     ` J. Bruce Fields
2010-11-29 19:09       ` Trond Myklebust
2010-11-30 15:36         ` Steve Dickson
2010-11-30 22:19           ` Trond Myklebust
2010-11-30 22:26             ` J. Bruce Fields
2010-11-30 22:33               ` Trond Myklebust
2010-11-30 22:36                 ` J. Bruce Fields
2010-11-30 22:47                   ` Trond Myklebust
2010-12-01  2:57                   ` Neil Brown
2010-12-01  3:10                     ` Trond Myklebust [this message]
2010-12-01  3:23                       ` Neil Brown
2010-12-01 16:29                       ` J. Bruce Fields
2010-12-02 23:10                         ` Thomas Haynes
2010-12-02 23:18                           ` Trond Myklebust
2010-12-02 23:28                             ` Spencer Shepler
2010-12-08  0:15                               ` 'J. Bruce Fields'
2010-12-10 19:00                                 ` Thomas Haynes
2010-12-10 19:17                                   ` J. Bruce Fields
2010-11-29 22:09   ` Daniel.Muntz
2010-11-29 22:57     ` Spencer Shepler
2010-11-29 23:16       ` Trond Myklebust
2010-11-29 23:25         ` Spencer Shepler
2010-11-29 23:26         ` Trond Myklebust
2010-11-29 23:30           ` Spencer Shepler
2010-11-29 23:40             ` Trond Myklebust
2010-11-30  0:02               ` Spencer Shepler
2010-11-30 11:44                 ` Spelic
2010-11-30 13:04                   ` Trond Myklebust
2010-11-30 15:48                     ` Boaz Harrosh
2010-11-29 23:34       ` Daniel.Muntz
2010-11-29 23:36         ` Spencer Shepler
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-11-29 17:32 Spelic
2010-11-29 19:50 ` Simon Kirby
2010-11-29 22:47   ` Spelic
2010-11-30 15:20     ` Chuck Lever

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1291173002.7694.7.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org \
    --to=trond.myklebust@netapp.com \
    --cc=SteveD@redhat.com \
    --cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
    --cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=neilb@suse.de \
    --cc=spelic@shiftmail.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).