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

[Rick Macklem <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 5:22 AM David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> I'd appreciate it if you took a look at what I've done to better support draft POSIX ACLs in NFSv4.1 and let me know your thoughts.
I have glanced at it. I think my opinion is already well known,
however it does not matter..
Why?
Because Trond will decide what goes in the Linux NFSv4 client and
NFSv4 server implementors will do
whatever the Linux NFSv4 client wants/needs.
I have encouraged Trond to comment. Until he does, I do not see any
reason to proceed further w.r.t. POSIX draft ACLs vs NFSv4 ACLs.

W.r.t. servers that implement a subset of NFSv4 ACLs natively, I will
comment on [e-mail] if/when I have a
chance to look at what your draft proposes and compare that with what
OpenZFS currently does.
(I doubt the OpenZFS ACL semantics can change, but ??)

rick

>
> There is a lot of work directed toward such support in acls-04.   It takes a different approach than your earlier proposal to create two new acl attributes in that it treats the issues within the framework of the existing ACL model, albeit with some major conceptual restructuring (but leaving the existing XDR pretty much intact.).
>
> I am still open to approaches that strive to be more draft-POSIX-ACL-oriented as discussed in my Appendix C.1 but feel those will have to wait until NFSv4.2.   It would be good if we can discuss those and  get enough agrrement to start implementation work on a common approach to these issues.
>
> Right now, I'm prototyping the draft-POSIX-ACL support described within acls-04 and I have no immediate plans to try anything in Appendix C. However, if you have plans for client implementation work for draft-POSIX-ACL-related implementation work, I could look at doing some v4.2 prototype to match.   I think we could do this before drafting a proposed v4.2 extension.