[PATCH] Fix open bug found at Microsoft interop event - version 2

Jeremy Allison jra at samba.org
Fri Jun 21 10:46:20 MDT 2013

On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 05:52:28PM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> I would really, really prefer we didn't have yet another nfsv4 option.
> I worked very hard with Alexander Werth to avoid adding another nfsv4
> mode, and we essentially agreed to deprecate the 'special'.  
> If we must have it, I will argue to change the default, because I
> strongly dislike 'broken by default, works if you know the magic
> incantation'.  

Ira will love you for that :-). He also strongly argued for it
to be on by default, but I was more conservative.

We already have an option "acl map full control" that is on by
default for the POSIX ACL mapping, so I'm happy to just re-use
that parameter here instead of introducing another one.

> One way around the upgrade issue is to have the HASH_SECURITY_INFO that
> vfs_acl_xattr passes down include a flag for mode 'false', and then
> fetch it again without that flag if we do want to use the underlying
> ACL.  That would allow us to honour the previous mapping and hash
> information.  (Of course, this reminds me that we need to extend the ACL
> blob handler to ZFS). 

Arggg :-(. This is adding a layer of complexity that I'd
really rather avoid. As you mention we're already changing
the mapping for 4.1, I'd rather not add this to this
specific patch.

If you really want it, it could be part of the fix extending
the blob handler.

> We have already changed the mapping for 4.1, when we changed some of the
> mappings in mode 'simple', but this should have (only?, mostly?)
> impacted files not created via Samba anyway. 

This is the same. It's also a pretty rare case, so should
have pretty much the same effect for people using acl_xattr
on top of acl_zfs or acl_gpfs. If we've already changed this
for 4.1, I'm happy to just change it for this also.

> On broader things, I would like to have the common nfsv4 stuff in an
> included section, so we keep them in sync between zfs and gpfs. 

Future patch :-).

> In the knownfail file, I there is a typo
> +^^samba3.base.delete.deltest16a

Thanks for noticing, will fix.

> Finally, thanks for extending the testsuite to cover this!  So much of
> or combinational complexity is in our VFS layer, and it's really good to
> see tests extended when options are added.

No problem, thanks for the review.

I'll resubmit the modified version shortly.


More information about the samba-technical mailing list