[nfsv4] Re: Our different approaches to draft POSIX ACL support in NFSv4

[David Noveck <[e-mail]>]

On Thursday, July 25, 2024, Chuck Lever III <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> > On Jul 25, 2024, at 9:44 AM, Rick Macklem <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Christoph pointed out to me that having multiple ACLs on a file is not
> > reasonable.  The draft I am writing will require a server to only support
> > one ACL model/file. (I think it needs to be a server choice and could be
> > indicated to the client by which attributes are supported for the fiile.
> > (This is related to the last point.  I'll leave the rest for others.)
>
> I agree there should be one per file,


Definitely.

>
> and that the server's
> local file system should determine which type of ACL it can
> support.


I would think it determines the set of types  it  an support.  This can be
ofen will be a singleton or the null set.

(I don't envision a scenario where one file system
> could support multiple types of ACLs).


I consider it unfortunate that your vision is so limited.

I expect to face the issue in the near future since Netapp supports a
considerable portion of the NFSv4 ACL model and will want to support the
draft POSIX ACL.

I don't think it is reasonable to tell users that they have to get rid of
their existing ACLs in order to allow them to use draft POSIX ACLs.



>
> > It would be nice if, somehow, the Linux folk could determine how often
> > the mapped NFSv4 ACLs are used on the Linux NFSv4 servers?
>
> As far as I am aware, NFSD does not use mapped ACLs, but I
> haven't done an in-depth look.
>
>
> --
> Chuck Lever
>
>
>