> 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 mismatches between these various
> protocols means that we
> need to make some trade-offs. In this case I think
> the business (as
> well as the engineers involved) would assert that
> being a good SMB
> server is critical, and that being able to
> authoritatively edit file
> permissions via SMB clients is part of what it means
> to be a good SMB
> server.
>
> Now, you could argue that we should being aclmode
> back and let the user
> choose which trade-offs to make. And you might
> propose new values for
> aclmode or enhancements to the groupmask setting of
> aclmode.
>
> > 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
> > confused, and unix users don't get to see all the
> permissions.
>
> Thus the current behavior is the same as the old
> aclmode=discard
> setting.
>
> > >> Now what?
> >
> > set the unix perms to 777 as a sign to the unix
> people to either (a)
> > leave it alone, or (b) learn to use 'chmod A...'.
> This will actually
> work: it's not a hand-waving hypothetical that just
> doesn't play out.
> That's not an option, not for a default behavior
> anyways.
>
> Nico
One question: Casper, where are you? The guy that did fine-grained
permissions IMO ought to have an idea of how to do something with ACLs
that's both safe and unsurprising for the various sorts of clients.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
