On 2022-09-22 at 09:38 -0700 Jeremy Allison via samba sent off: > > So samba would need to take into account that not all filesystems > > support extended attributes as a whole but might support some > > operations on them but not others. > > No, that way lies insanity and unmaintainable complexity in > Samba. Blame POSIX (again) for not standarizing EA behavior. sorry, but POSIX is not to blame here. NFS4 ACLs are the only standardized ACL implementation. The is no such thing as "POSIX ACLs". POSIX ACLs have always only been a draft. The draft was never finalized. All the UNIX falvours implemented different draft version, this is also why it does not make any sense to talk about a POSIX ACL standard here. Some implement for example DENY ACEs, some don't. Some implement default ACEs, some don't. Some implement a access mask, some don't. All of them are completely proprietary. In our Samba documentation we still give the implession that POSIX ACLs are a kind of standard. Honestly however, this is only the limited Linux proprietary version that we document and implement. All UNIX flavors (except for Linux however) support actually *standardized* NFS4 ACLs. They were standardized by the same people to withdrew the previously proposed POSIX ACL drafts. I see more and more customers running into the limitation, that neither the Linux SMB nor the NFS4 client implmentations satisfy their needs because NFS4 ACLs are non-existing in the Linux world and the management of NFS4 ACLs on POSIX clients, even if supported server-side, is a pita. Frankly speaking, for the majority of Samba fileserver setups actually Linux is no longer the recommended platform. There is *one* good reason, why NAS vendors prefer FreeBSD these days: the lack of NFS4 ACLs. Björn -- SerNet GmbH - Bahnhofsallee 1b - 37081 Göttingen phone: +495513700000 mailto:contact@xxxxxxxxxx AG Göttingen: HR-B 2816 - https://www.sernet.com Manag. Directors Johannes Loxen and Reinhild Jung data privacy policy https://www.sernet.de/privacy
