On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 02:57:25PM -0800, Bart Smaalders wrote: > Tim Haley wrote: > >I am sponsoring the following fast-track for Lisa Week. It introduces > >a new reserved uid and gid for purposes of improved ACL manipulation > >when an id is not mappable by the client or server. Requested binding > >is patch/micro. Timeout is 1/6/2010. > > > > Do the client and server exchange the unknown user id numerically or > via a string? If a string, does fixing the userid matter, or is it the > name that's important?
I expect the answer to be "a string" in the NFSv4 case, qualified with the sender's default domain (it has to have a domain qualifier). Questions: - What about NFSv3? Will the NFSv3 server reject SETATTRs that refer to UID/GID 96? Will the client send them? - The proposal says: |The client will map users or groups in an ACL that are unmappable to |this newly reserved uid/gid. This reserved uid/gid will not be allowed |to be set in an ACL from the Solaris NFSv4 client. Will the NFS server ever send unknown@<server's default domain>? If not, why not? Does the server enforce that unknown cannot be set by a client, or does only the client enforce this? If the server enforces this, does it match unkn...@* or just unknown@<server's default domain>? If the server matches unkn...@*, should this be standardized? Thanks, Nico --
