Return-Path: In-Reply-To: <200910051909.37910.agruen@suse.de> References: <524f69650909021156lf181c17uf800eba7c35a6f45@mail.gmail.com> <200910051831.56157.agruen@suse.de> <524f69650910050944k9bd0a3ci7b728f13b2c8225b@mail.gmail.com> <200910051909.37910.agruen@suse.de> Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 12:19:05 -0500 Message-ID: <524f69650910051019l49f09166v25f2288ddb30a92f@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: POSIX ACL support for NFSV4 (using sideband protocol) From: Steve French To: Andreas Gruenbacher Cc: ffilzlnx@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Trond Myklebust , nfsv4@linux-nfs.org, jra@samba.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: nfsv4-bounces@linux-nfs.org Errors-To: nfsv4-bounces@linux-nfs.org MIME-Version: 1.0 List-ID: On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > On Monday 05 October 2009 18:44:34 Steve French wrote: >> Recently I looked through NFSv4.1 spec, and it seems to address some >> ACL incompatibilities (with CIFS) by extending the NFSv4 ACL model. >> >> Should we be aiming for an eventual interface that would work for NFSv4.1 >> or limiting it to current NFSv4? > > I think Automatic Inheritance [*] is important for current Windows clients: > without it it's basically impossible to manage the permissions of entire > directory trees without shooting yourself in the foot. Yes - that piece among the various NFSv41 ACL changes also jumped out to me as I scanned the NFSv4.1 summary ... in part because I was looking at some Samba mapping problems (CIFS to NFSv4 ACLs) recently. In any case, seems very useful (even without any CIFS compatibility issues). -- Thanks, Steve _______________________________________________ NFSv4 mailing list NFSv4@linux-nfs.org http://linux-nfs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4