[PATCH v9] vfs_glusterfs: Samba VFS module for glusterfs

[Anand Avati]

On 5/29/13 3:47 PM, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-05-29 at 15:37 -0700, Anand Avati wrote:
>> On 5/29/13 3:27 PM, Anand Avati wrote:
>>>>> On 05/29/2013 07:21 AM, Anand Avati wrote:
>>>>> Implement a Samba VFS plugin for glusterfs based on gluster's gfapi.
>>>>> This is a "bottom" vfs plugin (not something to be stacked on top of
>>>>> another module), and translates (most) calls into closest actions
>>>>> on gfapi.
>>>> Anand before we push this in samba I would like to have an answer about
>>>> access control.
>>>>
>>>> I have tried to find out exactly how access control is handled but the
>>>> code is complex.
>>>>
>>>> However what I found so far is not encouraging.
>>>>
>>>> I see things like:
>>>>
>>>> #define GF_MAX_AUX_GROUPS 200
>>>>
>>>> and then in syncop_create_frame() that value is used to cap the max
>>>> number of auxiliary groups.
>>>>
>>>> In Linux the max number of auxiliary groups is 65536 and we have seen
>>>> easily 2k auxiliary groups attached to a user in Windows domains.
>>>
>>> Currently it is artificially limited to a number. I will work on making
>>> this dynamic. However this will be a completely internal change to
>>> glusterfs with no changes in either API or vfs_glusterfs. Thanks for the
>>> feedback.
>>
>> I have started working on this. Can we interpret this as a limitation of
>> glusterfs, rather than an issue with the VFS module?
>>
>> Let me know if there are any blockers for the merge.
>
> What it might mean is that we want the minimum version we accept via
> pkg-config raised, as it's going to be very difficult to configure test
> for (unless you happen to expose that in a public header).
>
> That kind of thing leads to all manner of subtle bugs (I've spent days
> on them personally).
>


Andrew,
   The pkg-config dependency number used in the v9 patch is for the yet 
unreleased glusterfs version. The API number 4 will be published in the 
next glusterfs (3.4.0) release. Support for large group list is already 
in review - http://review.gluster.org/5111/ and will be part of the next 
release. Since we are doing the integration off git repos of both 
projects, the dependency version is still fuzzy.

Is this still considered a blocker?

Avati