Re: POSIX ACL support for NFSV4 (using sideband protocol)

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

On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 08:54:06AM -0500, Steve French wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 1:20 AM, Ondrej Valousek<webserv@s3group.cz> wrote:
> >
> >> 2) If POSIX->NFSv4 client mapping is done (as had been suggested IIRC
> >> by others in the past) at least you lose less data (NFSv4 ACLs are
> >> "richer"
> >> in function than POSIX ACLs - so at least with the POSIX->NFSv4->POSIX
> >> case you are limiting the user to the subset of choices which are actually
> >> going to be able to be stored, no inheritence etc.)
> >>
> > I must say that I do not understand the motivation either. POSIX is not even
> > a standard and should be replaced with NFSv4 acls.
> > Even now ext3/ext4 support NFSv4 acls (ok. patch is needed but the patch is
> > there already).
> 
> If someone were able to convince the linux-fsdevel community to change
> fs/posix_acls.c
> (or add an fs/cifs_acls.c) to handle NFSv4/CIFS/NTFS ACL evaluation, and add
> support to store these richer ACLs on disk for the future (e.g. for
> btrfs), that would be
> great - but with no local file system in kernel which can store NFSv4 ACLs and
> no code to evaluate these ACLs in the VFS and with a NACK from fsdevel when

I don't remember that--do you have a pointer?

--b.

> others tried this a few years ago (even after MacOS and others moved to the
> CIFS/NTFS ACLs model)
> 
> > If the decision was up to me, I would forbid any nfsv4 acls if the server
> > can not store them properly (i.e. without any conversion)
> 
> That would be a pretty dramatic loss of function - being forced to use
> the primitive
> mode bits to protect files if the server were Linux - and could be
> worseeven NetApp does
> some ACL mapping