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

[Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com>]

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
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




-- 
Thanks,

Steve