On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 08:51 -0600, Latchesar Ionkov wrote: > Zero was the value that was used before, even though it wasn't defined > explicitly. I just defined a macro so we can see and eventually change > it to something better. I don't know if there is a good default value. > Is nfsnobody the same on all Linux distributions? Not necessarily. [....] > On 9/13/07, Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 9/12/07, Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Change the names of 'uid' and 'gid' parameters to the more appropriate > > > 'dfltuid' and 'dfltgid'. > > > > > > > ... > > > > > strcpy(v9ses->name, V9FS_DEFUSER); > > > strcpy(v9ses->remotename, V9FS_DEFANAME); > > > + v9ses->dfltuid = V9FS_DEFUID; > > > + v9ses->dfltgid = V9FS_DEFGID; > > > > > ... > > > +#define V9FS_DEFUID (0) > > > +#define V9FS_DEFGID (0) > > > > I'm not sure if there is a good solution here, but I'm uncomfortable > > with using uid=0 as the default. I'm not sure if there is a default > > uid for nobody, but anything is probably better than 0. Looks like > > nfsnobody is 65534, we could use that - even if only as a marker for On 32bit hardware. On 64bit it is (similar to 32bit): (unsigned int)-2. > > the server to map it to nobody on the target system? What do you > > think? > > > > Particularly with attach-per-user, we probably need to look at > > interacting with idmapd or create our own variant real soon. Bernd -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services - 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
