Hi, This question is probably too simple for this nfs developer list,
but I am intrigued to know if this is a bug or not, I do not find any
other reference to anyone with this problem
Ineed some help clarifying this issue in order to know if this is a bug
or limits of the NFSv4 / POSIX ACL mapping before reporting it
Creating a directory on the server with the following POSIX ACLs, rwx
for the group "sharedgroup" and same defaults:
############################################################
# file: directory
# owner: root
# group: root
user::rwx
group::r-x
group:sharedgroup:rwx
mask::rwx
other::---
default:user::rwx
default:group::r-x
default:group:sharedgroup:rwx
default:mask::rwx
default:other::---
############################################################
Creating files with the same user with umask 022 on the server an on the
NFS client, the files do not get the same POSIX ACL mask:
############################################################
# file: client
# owner: test
# group: testgroup
user::rw-
group::r-x #effective:r--
group:sharedgroup:rwx #effective:r--
mask::r--
other::r--
# file: server
# owner: test
# group: testgroup
user::rw-
group::r-x #effective:r--
group:sharedgroup:rwx #effective:rw-
mask::rw-
other::r--
############################################################
Is this normal or a bug?, My interpretation is that even that the
mapping of the ACLs is not 100% perfect this simple example should not
be a problem. Is it impossible using NFS to create a shared directory
for a group of users?
Thanks in advance
--
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
