On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 05:45:22PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > In addition, I could imagine that we'll optionally support local NFSv4-style > ACLs on specific file systems somewhen in the future. Most likely not. Let's not spread the NFSv4 ACL cancer more than absolutely nessecary. > * Don't map between POSIX ACLs and NFSv4 ACLs at all, and use a different > protocol for POSIX ACLs and for NFSv4 ACLs instead (e.g., version 4 of the > NFSACL protocol extension). The protocol extension is not currently > implemented in Solaris because current Solaris supports NFSv4 ACLs natively > instead of POSIX ACLs, and so they don't seem to have as strong a motivation > to keep POSIX ACLs working well as we currently do. The NFSACL protocol has > the huge advantage of supporting POSIX ACLs pretty well, and so a lot of the > overhead and complexity of doing the NFSv4 mapping would go away though. We definitly should support NFSACL for Linux to Linux deployments to avoid all that mess, yes. > * Map back from NFSv4 ACLs to POSIX ACLs on the client side, so that > POSIX ACLs on the server will appear as POSIX ACLs on the client. This > would take away all the mess we currently have in user-space and limit the > mapping problems to the NFSv4 protocol, where it really occurs. We could > define an additional NFsv4 attribute that the server could use to declare > if it supports POSIX ACLs only, so that the client won't have to try to > convert from NFSv4 to POSIX ACLs for servers that have native NFSv4 ACLs. That's probably useful if we want to support non-Linux NFSv4 servers. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
