On Thu, 2023-04-13 at 11:33 +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 06:27:07PM +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote: > > I'd like to request some time for those interested specifically > > in NFSD to gather and discuss some topics. Not a network file > > system free-for-all, but specifically for NFSD, because there > > is a long list of potential topics: > > > > • Progress on using iomap for NFSD READ/READ_PLUS (anna) > > • Replacing nfsd_splice_actor (all) > > • Transition from page arrays to bvecs (dhowells, hch) > > • tmpfs directory cookie stability (cel) > > • timestamp resolution and i_version (jlayton) > > I'd attend this one. > I wonder if we ought to propose a separate FS track spot for this? I sort of expect some lively discussion, and this may be of more interest than just nfsd folks. > > • GSS Kerberos futures (dhowells) > > • NFS/NFSD CI (jlayton) > > • NFSD POSIX to NFSv4 ACL translation - writing down the rules (all) > > I have some experience dealing with ACLs so I'm happy to attend just in > case I may be useful. That would be helpful! I'll note that there was a draft RFC for this many years ago, but it expired: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-nfsv4-acl-mapping-05 I think most of the rules are laid out there, but there are some areas where things just don't work right. A more radical idea: I wonder if we could get any traction at the IETF on a POSIX ACL extension for NFSv4? Basically, we could resurrect the old v3 nfsacl protocol as new operations for v4, and allow the client and server to negotiate on using them. Given that almost all the clients and servers in operation on the planet have to translate these, it makes some sense to avoid the translation when we can. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
