On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 08:50:57PM +0200, Thomas Nau wrote: > On 04/06/2011 07:28 PM, Jeremy Allison wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 10:21:41AM +0200, Thomas Nau wrote: > >> > >> We had issues in the past as ZFS and Windows have a different understanding > >> about how to sort ACLs. In combination with shared access to Excel > >> documents > >> this lead to people out locking themselves. I just thought having an > >> independent > >> ACL store would solve that problem for me :) > > > > ZFS shouldn't sort ACLs at all. I don't think any of the kernel > > code modifies the ACL order, that would change the meaining. > > Right, ZFS does not sort the ACLs but as far as I know Windows > and ZFS interpret them differently with respect to ordering.
No ! They interpret them exactly the same, that was the reason NFSv4 added them and standardized them as being essentially identical to Windows ACLs. See here: http://blogs.sun.com/lisaweek/entry/nfsv4_and_zfs_acls for details. Unlilke POSIX processing, and like Windows processing, the entire list is walked to determine access, not the most specific match. > >> Are you using vfs_zfsacl and did you ever run into the problems I > >> mentioned? > > > > I'm not personally, but the Nexenta people are and they haven't > > reported bugs. > > Good enough for me :) :-). Jeremy. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
