PROPOSAL: extend UNIX_INFO2 to mark existence of ACLs
smfrench at austin.rr.com
Fri Jan 25 07:53:02 GMT 2008
Jeremy Allison wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 09:57:08PM -0600, Christopher R. Hertel wrote:
>>I don't think that they're "arguments", per. se. We're just trying to get a
>>handle on what James is suggesting and how it might interact with other file
>This is a CIFS *POSIX* layer. In defining this I don't care about
>file systems that are non-POSIX. Screw them.
>>There are several flavors of ACL and a lot of schemes for mapping settings
>>from one type to another. MacOS, for instance, uses a POSIX-style API to
>>access and control ACLs with settings that are similar to Windows ACLs. I
>>know of at least one file system that keeps both POSIX permission bits (not
>>full ACLs) *and* Windows security descriptors.
>If it's not a POSIX ACL, it's not something of interest to the
>CIFS POSIX extensions.
And if more operating systems (other than Solaris and AIX and ...) move
to NFSv4 ACLs it is not interesting to the POSIX extensions?!
More information about the samba-technical