From: "bc Wong" Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfs-utils: Handle authentication flavour order properly Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 10:59:30 -0800 Message-ID: References: <629ABBF6-C368-44AC-B4B9-471296229325@oracle.com> <47D18983.4080507@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "Chuck Lever" , trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: "Peter Staubach" Return-path: Received: from el-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.162.178]:62730 "EHLO el-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751668AbYCGS7c (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Mar 2008 13:59:32 -0500 Received: by el-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id v27so835932ele.17 for ; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 10:59:31 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <47D18983.4080507@redhat.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Peter Staubach wrote: > Actually, NFS servers that support AUTH_NONE, map the uid and gid to the > anonymous uid and gids for access to file systems which are exported > AUTH_NONE. It doesn't seem to matter what authentication flavor that > the client uses. > > ps Hi Peter, My concern is that a server supports both AUTH_SYS and AUTH_NONE, where AUTH_SYS would give you the regular access, and AUTH_NONE would give the anon access as you described, which is typically a degraded read-only view. Therefore it's bad for the client to choose AUTH_NONE in this case, especially since the server presents AUTH_SYS *before* AUTH_NONE. I'll test more with AUTH_NONE on Solaris. Is there any specific setup you'd like me to verify? Thanks, bc