On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 06:15:19PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Tue, 2010-08-03 at 17:57 -0400, Jim Rees wrote: > > Daniel.Muntz@xxxxxxx wrote: > > > > I'll fourth this motion. The spec goes out of its way to declare this a > > violation. IMHO, the NFSv4.[0-n] specs should adopt the convention that a > > uid string consisting of [0-9]+ be interpreted as the string > > representation of a numeric UID--just as valid as a "user@domain" string. > > > > I argued for this as an option in the early days but was shouted down. > > Sorry I can't remember the details, it was many years ago. > > Why is nobody talking about fixing AUTH_SYS? The alternative to using > numeric uids/gids in NFS would be to use user@domain/group@domain in the > credential. I'm not sure what that does to address complaints like original poster's: http://marc.info/?l=linux-nfs&m=128080127215350&w=2 And I'd like it to be possible to make the NFSv3->NFSv4 upgrade as transparent as possible. --b. > > I believe that Nico had some proposals for RPCSEC_GSSv3 that addresses > this issue. If adopted, it would even be backwards compatible with > NFSv4.0. > > Trond > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
