proposed new Unix QFS Info level

Conrad Minshall conrad at
Wed Feb 7 06:10:48 GMT 2007

At 2:10 PM -0800 2/6/07, James Peach wrote:

>I'd prefer not to nail down the relationships between the SIDs and the
>GIDs in this case. For example, on Mac OS X, it's very hard to
>guarantee that the GID list is complete - the kernel only knows a
>small number of the group memberships at any one time. Since the group
>memberships can (potentially) change at any time, this information is
>best regarded as a hint and used for display purposes (ie. not for
>access control).
>Additionally, it is possible for a server to not map any of the GIDs.
>For example, there may be a server that provides *only* Unix
>semantics. In this case, the GID list oule be populated and the SID
>list would not be. I don't know of any such servers, but there was a
>desire to make this possible :)
>The main rationale for this extension is for Unix clients to be able
>to sensibly display whether files are "owned by me" or "owned by
>someone else, as per "ls -l". A secondary rationale is to be able to
>determine whether a client has been mapped or forced to guest on a
>per-share basis. This can happen with some Samba configurations.

OK, so I must ask why should this (Unix "whoami" proposal aka QFSInfo 
level 0x202) return all those supplementary gids and SIDs at all? 
The latency cost could be considerable.

More information about the samba-technical mailing list