On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Adam Megacz wrote:
Derrick J Brashear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
And it's directories, not files, for which the implicit ownership
being talked about comes into play.
Okay. Would it be correct to say that the ownership of non-directory
files matters only for the "extra permission check" ("u+rw" bits are
checked in addition to AFS ACLs)? Or are there other situations where
this information gets used?
mode bits/unix owner are only ever checked by the client itself. Server
doesn't care. (modulo directories as mentioned)
Does the "group" of a directory (or file) in AFS space have any
meaning?
No.
Also, since PTS userids don't have to match local UNIX userids, do UNIX
applications get confused when they create a file and fstat()->uid !=
getuid()? Or just "no more confused than usual when dealing with AFS
file semantics" (ie only very rarely)?
Most sites do match uid to pts id, but, most applications don't stat()
what they create anyway.
Lastly, is there any reason for files to have ownership other than
preventing dumb users from clobbering their own home directory's
permissions? It seems like there would have been some other way to
accomplish this with a smaller "semantic footprint"...
In AFS, you mean? Because AFS was supposed to be like the ufs, presumably.
Derrick
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
