Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:19:34AM -0600, Doug McCallum wrote:
>
>> Nicolas Williams wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:43:31AM -0600, Tim Haley wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> CIFS is the only protocol we currently support that has the
>>>> concept of shares (resources in sharemgr/share terms) so this
>>>> implementation will initially only provide support for CIFS.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That can't possibly be right. NFS has long had a concept of shares, and
>>> share ACLs too.
>>>
>> The NFS host access control (which is being added to SMB as well) is
>> not ACL based.
>>
>
> I was specifically responding to the claim about the notion of shares.
>
NFS has shares, but not the same concept. The parenthetical addition of
the "resources"
terminology was intended to clarify the difference. NFS doesn't really
have
the same definition. The terminology can be confusing between protocols
that have
similar, but slightly different, semantics.
>
>> They are strictly based off of the client IP address and not based on
>> the user's ID.
>>
>
> That's true, but many people call these ACLs. An ACL need not have a
> particular form in order to be deserving of the term "ACL."
>
NFS hasn't documented them exactly as ACLs, but I see where you are
coming from.
Access lists and access control lists are similar. We tend to refer to
the NFS style as
host based access and the SMB ACLs as share level ACLs.
