On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 01:28:10AM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Thanks for the cc. After looking at the user namespace issues it looks > like the sane thing is really to map the user namespace uids into > appropriate uids for storing on the filesystem. Anything else > seems to be a lot of pain for very little gain. > > If a filesystem went as far as storing string ids. I think I would > be happy to use different domains for different user namespaces, but > for anything else I just don't see the point. > > What it does look like to me is that at some point we will want to > support > 32bit uids. There are 7 billion people on the planet and we > only have 4 billion user ids. The biggest individual organization have > 3 million users, which keeps us safe for now. However my forecast is > each user namespace is going to wind up giving each user a bunch of > uids. That will accelerate the point at which we find 32bit uids tight. > How fast being generous and assigning 10k uids per user is going to get > us into trouble I don't know. Yes, bigger uid's make sense to me. But at the point when we make that transition I think updating the ACL format will be the least of our troubles. So I think we'll leave it alone rather than try to guess the right type now. --b. -- 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
