Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 18:13:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 18:13:24 -0400 Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.130.16]:2738 "EHLO pat.uio.no") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 14 Aug 2002 18:13:24 -0400 To: Dax Kelson Cc: torvalds@transmeta.com, "Kendrick M. Smith" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "nfs@lists.sourceforge.net" Subject: Re: Will NFSv4 be accepted? References: From: Trond Myklebust Date: 15 Aug 2002 00:17:10 +0200 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 889 Lines: 17 >>>>> " " == Dax Kelson writes: > I for one would REALLY like to see NFSv4 (actually, Kerberized > NFSv4 is what I'm after). I just finished setting up a > Kerberized Solaris NFS environment with home directories > automounted from the clients with strong user authentication. > Frankly, the stock (non-Kerberized) NFS security model blows. Note: The RPCSEC_GSS (and accompanying kerberos) stuff is completely independent of NFSv4. It is still in the process of being finalized, but when it is, it will apply to NFSv2/v3 as well as v4. RPCSEC_GSS is not an argument for NFSv4... Cheers, Trond - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/