> 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
