proposed new Unix QFS Info level

[Conrad Minshall]

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.