From: Steve Dickson Subject: Re: numeric UIDs Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 10:40:18 -0400 Message-ID: <4C655952.4000103@RedHat.com> References: <201008030401.33552.dreck@vmsd.ath.cx> <20100803164318.GB13896@merit.edu> <20100803192216.GC31579@fieldses.org> <20100803215704.GA15494@merit.edu> <1280873719.14520.17.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <20100803222337.GA9752@fieldses.org> <1280874675.14520.23.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <20100803224245.GB9752@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Trond Myklebust , Jim Rees , Daniel.Muntz@emc.com, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: "J. Bruce Fields" Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:61551 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761664Ab0HMOke (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Aug 2010 10:40:34 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100803224245.GB9752@fieldses.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 08/03/2010 06:42 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 06:31:15PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: >> On Tue, 2010-08-03 at 18:23 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 06:15:19PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: >>>> On Tue, 2010-08-03 at 17:57 -0400, Jim Rees wrote: >>>>> Daniel.Muntz@emc.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I'll fourth this motion. The spec goes out of its way to declare this a >>>>> violation. IMHO, the NFSv4.[0-n] specs should adopt the convention that a >>>>> uid string consisting of [0-9]+ be interpreted as the string >>>>> representation of a numeric UID--just as valid as a "user@domain" string. >>>>> >>>>> I argued for this as an option in the early days but was shouted down. >>>>> Sorry I can't remember the details, it was many years ago. >>>> >>>> Why is nobody talking about fixing AUTH_SYS? The alternative to using >>>> numeric uids/gids in NFS would be to use user@domain/group@domain in the >>>> credential. >>> >>> I'm not sure what that does to address complaints like original >>> poster's: >>> >>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-nfs&m=128080127215350&w=2 >>> >>> And I'd like it to be possible to make the NFSv3->NFSv4 upgrade as >>> transparent as possible. >> >> 1) RFC3530 does allow a workaround for cases where the _server_ doesn't >> have a mapping from uid/gid -> name. We just haven't implemented it on >> Linux servers (or clients). > > Yeah, somebody should. I'm assuming you are talking about in the about page 47, third paragraph that starts with "To provide a greater degree of compatibility..." or are you referring to a different part of the RFC? steved.