[PROPOSAL] extend UNIX_INFO2 to flag extended access controls (take 2)

[Christopher R. Hertel]

Steve French wrote:
> James Peach wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This is a modified version of my earlier proposal,
>>     <http://marc.info/?l=samba-technical&m=120103599815292&w=2>
>>
>> I think that this version clarifies my intent and solves the
>> backwards  compatibility /versioning problem.
>>
>> 1. The Problem
>>
>> The fundamental problem is that a SMB client that uses UNIX_INFO2 
>> isn't able to use the Permissions field to evaluate access(2) if the 
>> server implements a permissions model that goes beyond the basic Unix 
>> permissions bits.
>>
>> However, even when the server implements an extended permissions 
>> model, most files residing on the server do not have extended 
>> permission applied to them.
>>
>> If the Unix permissions are the only access control on the file, then 
>> the client can accurately handle access(2) calls without making 
>> further round trips to the server (as long as it is prepared to live 
>> with the race condition).
>>
>> 2. The Proposal
>> #define UNIX_NO_EXTENDED_PERMISSIONS (1<<63)
>> The server MAY set the UNIX_NO_EXTENDED_PERMISSIONS bit in the 
>> UNIX_INFO2 Permissions field if this field completely describes the 
>> permissions of the file.
>> That is, if the server sets this bit, it is indicating to the client 
>> that the file has no access control other than the Unix permissions 
>> bits described in the SNIA QUERY_FILE_UNIX_BASIC documentation.
>> 3. Compatibility
>> Existing servers that support the Unix extensions leave the 
>> UNIX_NO_EXTENDED_PERMISSIONS clear, indicating that there MAY be an 
>> extended permissions model in use. In this case, clients SHOULD uses 
>> their existing strategies for presenting permissions to the user and 
>> for evaluating access(2).
>>
>>
> I don't mind this (evaluating the permission call properly would be
> helpful), but I am most concerned with how expensive it is to do this on
> the server.  If it is too slow, it is cheaper to have the client query.

I think that if the client queries (which the client will have to do if the
bit isn't set) then the server will have to do the work anyway.  It will
cost an additional round trip.

Chris -)-----
[Okay, Jeremy, that's #3.]

-- 
"Implementing CIFS - the Common Internet FileSystem" ISBN: 013047116X
Samba Team -- http://www.samba.org/     -)-----   Christopher R. Hertel
jCIFS Team -- http://jcifs.samba.org/   -)-----   ubiqx development, uninq.
ubiqx Team -- http://www.ubiqx.org/     -)-----   crh at ubiqx.mn.org
OnLineBook -- http://ubiqx.org/cifs/    -)-----   crh at ubiqx.org