On Sat, Oct 09, 2010 at 09:52:51PM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
> Are we living in the past?
>
> In the bad old days, UNIX systems spoke NFS and Windows systems spoke
> CIFS. The cost of creating a file system was expensive -- slices,
> partitions, etc.
>
> With ZFS, file systems (datasets) are r
Are we living in the past?
In the bad old days, UNIX systems spoke NFS and Windows systems spoke
CIFS. The cost of creating a file system was expensive -- slices, partitions,
etc.
With ZFS, file systems (datasets) are relatively inexpensive.
So, are we putting too many constraints into a system
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 05:19:25PM -0400, Miles Nordin wrote:
> > "nw" == Nicolas Williams writes:
>
> nw> *You* stated that your proposal wouldn't allow Windows users
> nw> full control over file permissions.
>
> me: I have a proposal
>
> you: op! OP op, wait! DOES YOUR PROPOSAL
> "nw" == Nicolas Williams writes:
nw> *You* stated that your proposal wouldn't allow Windows users
nw> full control over file permissions.
me: I have a proposal
you: op! OP op, wait! DOES YOUR PROPOSAL blah blah WINDOWS blah blah
COMPLETELY AND EXACTLY LIKE THE CURRENT ONE.
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 04:38:02PM -0400, Miles Nordin wrote:
> > "nw" == Nicolas Williams writes:
>
> nw> The current system fails closed
>
> wrong.
>
> $ touch t0
> $ chmod 444 t0
> $ chmod A0+user:$(id -nu):write_data:allow t0
> $ ls -l t0
> -r--r--r--+ 1 carton carton 0
> "nw" == Nicolas Williams writes:
nw> The current system fails closed
wrong.
$ touch t0
$ chmod 444 t0
$ chmod A0+user:$(id -nu):write_data:allow t0
$ ls -l t0
-r--r--r--+ 1 carton carton 0 Oct 6 20:22 t0
now go to an NFSv3 client:
$ ls -l t0
-r--r--r-- 1 carton 405 0 201
On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 02:28:18PM -0400, Miles Nordin wrote:
> > "nw" == Nicolas Williams writes:
>
> nw> I would think that 777 would invite chmods. I think you are
> nw> handwaving.
>
> it is how AFS worked. Since no file on a normal unix box besides /tmp
But would the AFS expe
> "nw" == Nicolas Williams writes:
nw> I would think that 777 would invite chmods. I think you are
nw> handwaving.
it is how AFS worked. Since no file on a normal unix box besides /tmp
ever had 777 it would send a SIGWTF to any AFS-unaware graybeards that
stumbled onto the director
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 08:14:24PM -0400, Miles Nordin wrote:
> >> Can the user in (3) fix the permissions from Windows?
>
> no, not under my proposal.
Let's give it a whirld anyways:
> but it sounds like currently people cannot ``fix'' permissions through
> the quirky autotranslation anyway
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 08:14:24PM -0400, Miles
> Nordin wrote:
> > >> Can the user in (3) fix the permissions from
> Windows?
> >
> > no, not under my proposal.
>
> Then your proposal is a non-starter. Support for
> multiple remote
> filesystem access protocols is key for ZFS and
> Solari
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 08:14:24PM -0400, Miles Nordin wrote:
> >> Can the user in (3) fix the permissions from Windows?
>
> no, not under my proposal.
Then your proposal is a non-starter. Support for multiple remote
filesystem access protocols is key for ZFS and Solaris.
The impedance mism
>> Can the user in (3) fix the permissions from Windows?
no, not under my proposal.
but it sounds like currently people cannot ``fix'' permissions through
the quirky autotranslation anyway, certainly not to the point where
neither unix nor windows users are confused: windows users are always
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 03:28:14PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> Consider this chronologically-ordered sequence of events:
>
> 1) File is created via Windows, gets SMB/ZFS/NFSv4-style ACL, including
>inherittable ACEs. A mode computed from this ACL might be 664, say.
>
> 2) A Unix user do
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 02:55:26PM -0400, Miles Nordin wrote:
> > "nw" == Nicolas Williams writes:
> nw> Keep in mind that Windows lacks a mode_t. We need to interop
> nw> with Windows. If a Windows user cannot completely change file
> nw> perms because there's a mode_t completel
> "nw" == Nicolas Williams writes:
nw> Keep in mind that Windows lacks a mode_t. We need to interop
nw> with Windows. If a Windows user cannot completely change file
nw> perms because there's a mode_t completely out of their
nw> reach... they'll be frustrated.
well...AIUI t
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 05:21:51PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 03:09:22PM -0700, Ralph Böhme wrote:
> > > Keep in mind that Windows lacks a mode_t. We need to
> > > interop with Windows.
> >
> > Oh my, I see. Another itch to scratch. Now at least Windows users are
> >
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 03:09:22PM -0700, Ralph Böhme wrote:
> > Keep in mind that Windows lacks a mode_t. We need to
> > interop with Windows.
>
> Oh my, I see. Another itch to scratch. Now at least Windows users are
> happy while me and mabye others are not.
Yes. Pardon me for forgetting to m
> Keep in mind that Windows lacks a mode_t. We need to
> interop with Windows.
Oh my, I see. Another itch to scratch. Now at least Windows users are happy
while me and mabye others are not.
-r
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discus
Keep in mind that Windows lacks a mode_t. We need to interop with
Windows. If a Windows user cannot completely change file perms because
there's a mode_t completely out of their reach... they'll be frustrated.
Thus an ACL-and-mode model where both are applied doesn't work. It'd be
nice, but it
> "rb" == Ralph Böhme writes:
rb> The Darwin kernel evaluates permissions in a first
rb> match paradigm, evaluating the ACL before the mode
well...I think it would be better to AND them together like AFS did.
In that case it doesn't make any difference in which order you do it
becau
20 matches
Mail list logo
