From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: [nfsv4] Re: NFSv4 ACL and POSIX interaction / mask, draft-ietf-nfsv4-acls-00 not ready Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 20:28:26 -0400 Message-ID: <20060711002826.GB1440@fieldses.org> References: <200607032310.15252.agruen@suse.de> <20060710141541.GA978@fieldses.org> <200607110201.43319.agruen@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: Lisa Week , nfsv4@ietf.org, Sam Falkner , nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, Spencer Shepler , Brian Pawlowski Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.92] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0675-0002Ci-93 for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:28:31 -0700 Received: from mail.fieldses.org ([66.93.2.214] helo=pickle.fieldses.org) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.44) id 1G0674-00046K-9u for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:28:31 -0700 To: Andreas Gruenbacher In-Reply-To: <200607110201.43319.agruen@suse.de> List-Id: "Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 02:01:42AM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > The issue is that you sometimes want to give the owning group fewer perissions > than say, user:bfields in the above example. You can only do that by > separating the owning group and mask permissions. > > For this aspect of the problem (actually for all aspects except for those that > the DENY entries cause because they are sometimes difficult or impossible to > uniquely tell from other "ordinary" entries) it is totally irrelevant whether > the mask is represented as a mask:: acl entry as in POSIX ACLs, as a series > of DENY ACL entries, or as NFSv4 attributes. > > (POSIX ACLs only need one mask entry because they can never grant more than > rwx permissions anyway, and so the owner and other permissions are always > identical to the owner and other file mode permission bits. That's no longer > true with POSIX ACLs, and so there we also need mask entries for the owner > and for others.) So you need this if and only if you want to be able to set OWNER@ permissions other than read, write, or execute, *and* want to be able to recover from a chmod? The argument for the reversibility of chmod seems a lot stronger when the information that could be lost is a long list of users and permissions than when it's just a few bits for the owner. --b. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs