Re: [nfsv4] Re: NFSv4 ACL and POSIX interaction / mask, draft-ietf-nfsv4-acls-00 not ready

On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 02:01:42AM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> The issue is that you sometimes want to give the owning group fewer perissions 
> than say, user:bfields in the above example. You can only do that by 
> separating the owning group and mask permissions.
> 
> For this aspect of the problem (actually for all aspects except for those that 
> the DENY entries cause because they are sometimes difficult or impossible to 
> uniquely tell from other "ordinary" entries) it is totally irrelevant whether 
> the mask is represented as a mask:: acl entry as in POSIX ACLs, as a series 
> of DENY ACL entries, or as NFSv4 attributes.
> 
> (POSIX ACLs only need one mask entry because they can never grant more than 
> rwx permissions anyway, and so the owner and other permissions are always 
> identical to the owner and other file mode permission bits. That's no longer 
> true with POSIX ACLs, and so there we also need mask entries for the owner 
> and for others.)

So you need this if and only if you want to be able to set OWNER@
permissions other than read, write, or execute, *and* want to be able to
recover from a chmod?

The argument for the reversibility of chmod seems a lot stronger when
the information that could be lost is a long list of users and
permissions than when it's just a few bits for the owner.

--b.

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
nfsv4@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4