On Sat, Oct 09, 2010 at 09:52:51PM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
Are we living in the past?
In the bad old days, UNIX systems spoke NFS and Windows systems spoke
CIFS. The cost of creating a file system was expensive -- slices,
partitions, etc.
With ZFS, file systems (datasets) are
Are we living in the past?
In the bad old days, UNIX systems spoke NFS and Windows systems spoke
CIFS. The cost of creating a file system was expensive -- slices, partitions,
etc.
With ZFS, file systems (datasets) are relatively inexpensive.
So, are we putting too many constraints into a
nw == Nicolas Williams nicolas.willi...@oracle.com writes:
nw The current system fails closed
wrong.
$ touch t0
$ chmod 444 t0
$ chmod A0+user:$(id -nu):write_data:allow t0
$ ls -l t0
-r--r--r--+ 1 carton carton 0 Oct 6 20:22 t0
now go to an NFSv3 client:
$ ls -l t0
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 04:38:02PM -0400, Miles Nordin wrote:
nw == Nicolas Williams nicolas.willi...@oracle.com writes:
nw The current system fails closed
wrong.
$ touch t0
$ chmod 444 t0
$ chmod A0+user:$(id -nu):write_data:allow t0
$ ls -l t0
-r--r--r--+ 1 carton carton
nw == Nicolas Williams nicolas.willi...@oracle.com writes:
nw *You* stated that your proposal wouldn't allow Windows users
nw full control over file permissions.
me: I have a proposal
you: op! OP op, wait! DOES YOUR PROPOSAL blah blah WINDOWS blah blah
COMPLETELY AND EXACTLY
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 05:19:25PM -0400, Miles Nordin wrote:
nw == Nicolas Williams nicolas.willi...@oracle.com writes:
nw *You* stated that your proposal wouldn't allow Windows users
nw full control over file permissions.
me: I have a proposal
you: op! OP op, wait! DOES
On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 02:28:18PM -0400, Miles Nordin wrote:
nw == Nicolas Williams nicolas.willi...@oracle.com writes:
nw I would think that 777 would invite chmods. I think you are
nw handwaving.
it is how AFS worked. Since no file on a normal unix box besides /tmp
But would
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 08:14:24PM -0400, Miles Nordin wrote:
Can the user in (3) fix the permissions from Windows?
no, not under my proposal.
Let's give it a whirld anyways:
but it sounds like currently people cannot ``fix'' permissions through
the quirky autotranslation anyway,
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 08:14:24PM -0400, Miles
Nordin wrote:
Can the user in (3) fix the permissions from
Windows?
no, not under my proposal.
Then your proposal is a non-starter. Support for
multiple remote
filesystem access protocols is key for ZFS and
Solaris.
The
nw == Nicolas Williams nicolas.willi...@oracle.com writes:
nw Keep in mind that Windows lacks a mode_t. We need to interop
nw with Windows. If a Windows user cannot completely change file
nw perms because there's a mode_t completely out of their
nw reach... they'll be
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 02:55:26PM -0400, Miles Nordin wrote:
nw == Nicolas Williams nicolas.willi...@oracle.com writes:
nw Keep in mind that Windows lacks a mode_t. We need to interop
nw with Windows. If a Windows user cannot completely change file
nw perms because there's a
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 03:28:14PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
Consider this chronologically-ordered sequence of events:
1) File is created via Windows, gets SMB/ZFS/NFSv4-style ACL, including
inherittable ACEs. A mode computed from this ACL might be 664, say.
2) A Unix user does
Can the user in (3) fix the permissions from Windows?
no, not under my proposal.
but it sounds like currently people cannot ``fix'' permissions through
the quirky autotranslation anyway, certainly not to the point where
neither unix nor windows users are confused: windows users are always
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 08:14:24PM -0400, Miles Nordin wrote:
Can the user in (3) fix the permissions from Windows?
no, not under my proposal.
Then your proposal is a non-starter. Support for multiple remote
filesystem access protocols is key for ZFS and Solaris.
The impedance
rb == Ralph Böhme ra...@rsrc.de writes:
rb The Darwin kernel evaluates permissions in a first
rb match paradigm, evaluating the ACL before the mode
well...I think it would be better to AND them together like AFS did.
In that case it doesn't make any difference in which order you do it
Keep in mind that Windows lacks a mode_t. We need to interop with
Windows. If a Windows user cannot completely change file perms because
there's a mode_t completely out of their reach... they'll be frustrated.
Thus an ACL-and-mode model where both are applied doesn't work. It'd be
nice, but it
Keep in mind that Windows lacks a mode_t. We need to
interop with Windows.
Oh my, I see. Another itch to scratch. Now at least Windows users are happy
while me and mabye others are not.
-r
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 03:09:22PM -0700, Ralph Böhme wrote:
Keep in mind that Windows lacks a mode_t. We need to
interop with Windows.
Oh my, I see. Another itch to scratch. Now at least Windows users are
happy while me and mabye others are not.
Yes. Pardon me for forgetting to mention
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 05:21:51PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 03:09:22PM -0700, Ralph Böhme wrote:
Keep in mind that Windows lacks a mode_t. We need to
interop with Windows.
Oh my, I see. Another itch to scratch. Now at least Windows users are
happy while
19 matches
Mail list logo
