Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from smtp.mail.umich.edu ([141.211.12.86]:46866 "EHLO tombraider.mr.itd.umich.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757895Ab2FARKV (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Jun 2012 13:10:21 -0400 Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 13:10:12 -0400 From: Jim Rees To: "Myklebust, Trond" Cc: Orion Poplawski , "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: Spurious rpc.idmapd nss_getpwnam: name 'nobody' does not map into domain messages Message-ID: <20120601171012.GA9054@umich.edu> References: <1338566283.2774.19.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <4FC8ED22.40508@cora.nwra.com> <1338568876.2774.25.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1338568876.2774.25.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Myklebust, Trond wrote: > Well, it's mapping it to "nobody" id 99: Yes, that's the correct thing to do if a user "nobody" exists. Is it? RFC3530 says "nobody" (on the wire) is the anonymous user. If the server has a real user whose local name is "nobody," should the nfs anonymous user be mapped to the real local user named "nobody", or should it be mapped to uid -2? I'm inclined to say that if you have a real user named "nobody" on linux then you get what you deserve.