Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 06 Dec 2010 17:47:36 -0500
From:      Joe Auty <joe@netmusician.org>
To:        =?UTF-8?B?RWR3YXJkIFRvbWFzeiBOYXBpZXJhxYJh?= <trasz@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Migrating from NFSv3 to v4 - NFSv4 ACL/permission confusion
Message-ID:  <4CFD6808.8010004@netmusician.org>
In-Reply-To: <408E7ECD-C232-47DD-9D24-389F2CA4E406@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <1124305635.1255931.1291670668724.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> <4CFD5D73.1050601@netmusician.org> <F8F7A4F9-7E1F-4B32-98D3-F595063238D7@FreeBSD.org> <4CFD6506.7090901@netmusician.org> <408E7ECD-C232-47DD-9D24-389F2CA4E406@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Edward Tomasz Napiera=C5=82a wrote:
> Wiadomo=C5=9B=C4=87 napisana przez Joe Auty w dniu 2010-12-06, o godz. =
23:34:
>> Edward Tomasz Napiera=C5=82a wrote:
>>> Wiadomo=C5=9B=C4=87 napisana przez Joe Auty w dniu 2010-12-06, o godz=
. 23:02:
>>>>> Also, make sure "ls -l" is not reporting "nobody". If the user/grou=
p
>>>>> name mapping isn't working, most Setattr Ops will fail.
>>>>>
>>>>> rick
>>>>>
>>>> Thanks Rick,
>>>>
>>>> I will look into this, but for the benefit of my own education, are
>>>> NFSv4 ACLs supposed to be intertwined or separate from standard Unix
>>>> permissions? I'm confused as to how the ACLs have changed from v3, o=
r if
>>>> this is even relevant to my problem not really knowing how they work=
 and
>>>> why they are needed :)
>>> Both POSIX.1e and NFSv4 ACLs are similar in that they both influence
>>> the mode, and get influenced by it.  In other words, when you change
>>> the ACL, the mode gets updated; when you change the mode, the ACL get=
s
>>> updated.  Also, for both POSIX.1e and NFSv4 ACLs, file mode continues
>>> to work as usual if you ignore the ACL part.
>>>
>> Thanks for this!
>>
>> So, if I want to just ignore the NFSv4 ACLs on account of not needing
>> anything beyond the POSIX ACLs, I'm free to do so without consequence.=
..
>> Correct?
>
> If you want to just ignore the ACLs on account of not needing anything
> beyond the file mode, aka standard UNIX permissions.  Filesystems
> support either POSIX.1e ACLs, or NFSv4 ACLs, not both.  I didn't
> actually test NFSv4, but I guess it uses NFSv4 ACLs, not POSIX.1e.
> ZFS supports NFSv4 only.  UFS supports either POSIX.1e or NFSv4,
> depending on the mount options.
I might be misunderstanding you, but ZFS definitely supports NFSv3
because I've been mounting and using NFS volumes via this protocol
version for quite some time now without incident.


> --
> If you cut off my head, what would I say?  Me and my head, or me and my=
 body?
>


--=20
Joe Auty, NetMusician
NetMusician helps musicians, bands and artists create beautiful,
professional, custom designed, career-essential websites that are easy
to maintain and to integrate with popular social networks.
www.netmusician.org <http://www.netmusician.org>;
joe@netmusician.org <mailto:joe@netmusician.org>




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4CFD6808.8010004>