Re: numeric UIDs

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

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 01:30:46PM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
> 
> 
> On 08/13/2010 12:31 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > There are four cases where translation can be done:
> > 
> > 	Sending id from server to client (ls, stat, getacl):
> > 		1. server uid -> string
> > 		2. string -> client uid
> > 	Sending id from client to server (chown, setacl):
> > 		3. client uid -> string
> > 		4. string -> client uid
> > 
> > Cases 1 and 2 are uncontroversial.  Definitely map ascii-fied integers
> > in both of those cases.
> Does "ascii-fied integers" mean "3606" (a mapping without the @domain part)?

That's what I meant, yes.

> 
> > 
> > Case 4 violates the SHOULD on page 47.  Which would make case 3 useless
> > if all servers respect that SHOULD.  I think we should ignore the SHOULD
> > and implement 3 and 4 too, but Trond may not agree.
> > 
> > I suppose we could make this all configurable, and then argue about what
> > the defaults should be.  If we implement all this in idmapd then that's
> > easy.
> I guess... I would think whatever make the v2/v3 to v4 transition
> seamless would be the best default... 
>  
> > 
> > I don't know what other clients and servers do.  Probably 1 and 2 at
> > least, but maybe it's something to check at the next bakeathon.
> > 
> > Do we actually use an @-less "nobody" as suggested in the last
> > paragraph?  If not that might be something else to fix.
> It appears we do... see idtonameres()....

OK, good.

--b.