2011/1/27 Ryan John <john.r...@bsse.ethz.ch>: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Frank Lahm [mailto:frankl...@googlemail.com] >> Sent: 25 January 2011 14:50 >> To: Ryan John >> Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org >> Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Changed ACL behavior in snv_151 ? > >> John, > >> welcome onboard! > >> 2011/1/25 Ryan John <john.r...@bsse.ethz.ch>: >>> I’m sharing file systems using a smb and nfs, and since I’ve upgraded to >>> snv_151, when I do a chmod from an NFS client, I lose all the NFSv4 ACLs. > >> <http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=134162> > >> I'd summarize as follows: >> in order to play nice with Windows ACL semantics via builtin CIFS, >> they choose the approach of throwing away ACLs on chmod(). Makes >> Windows happy, others not so. > > This really breaks our whole setup. > Under snv_134 our users were happy with Windows ACLs, and NFSv3 and NFSv4 > Linux clients. > They all worked very well together. The only problem we had with the deny > ACLs, was when using the MacOS "Finder"
You could try Netatalk for access from Macs. The OS X AFP VFS plugin is far more forgiving then the CIFS one, making AFP still the file sharing protocol of choice for Macs. We've implemented a workaround for this chmod() vs ACL problem in (afair) Netatlk 2.1.5. For easy-to-use ACL support, you could give the just released 2.2-beta1 a try. > Was it a result of PSARC/2009/029 ? > http://arc.opensolaris.org/caselog/PSARC/2010/029/20100126_mark.shellenbaum Afair, yes. > If so, I think that was implemented around snv_137. Yes. -f _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
