[Samba] [lustre-discuss] Odd "File exists" behavior when copy-pasting many files to an SMB exported Lustre FS

[Jeremy Allison]

On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 07:53:54PM +0200, Björn JACKE wrote:
>On 2022-09-22 at 09:38 -0700 Jeremy Allison via samba sent off:
>> > So samba would need to take into account that not all filesystems
>> > support extended attributes as a whole but might support some
>> > operations on them but not others.
>>
>> No, that way lies insanity and unmaintainable complexity in
>> Samba. Blame POSIX (again) for not standarizing EA behavior.
>
>sorry, but POSIX is not to blame here.

You misunderstood :-). I'm blaming POSIX *because*
they didn't standardize the behavior of EA's on a
filesystem, thus leaving the mess that Samba has
to cope with.

> NFS4 ACLs are the only standardized ACL
>implementation. The is no such thing as "POSIX ACLs". POSIX ACLs have always
>only been a draft. The draft was never finalized. All the UNIX falvours
>implemented different draft version, this is also why it does not make any
>sense to talk about a POSIX ACL standard here. Some implement for example DENY
>ACEs, some don't. Some implement default ACEs, some don't. Some implement a
>access mask, some don't. All of them are completely proprietary. In our Samba
>documentation we still give the implession that POSIX ACLs are a kind of
>standard. Honestly however, this is only the limited Linux proprietary version
>that we document and implement.
>
>All UNIX flavors (except for Linux however) support actually *standardized*
>NFS4 ACLs. They were standardized by the same people to withdrew the previously
>proposed POSIX ACL drafts.
>
>I see more and more customers running into the limitation, that neither the
>Linux SMB nor the NFS4 client implmentations satisfy their needs because NFS4
>ACLs are non-existing in the Linux world and the management of NFS4 ACLs on
>POSIX clients, even if supported server-side, is a pita. Frankly speaking, for
>the majority of Samba fileserver setups actually Linux is no longer the
>recommended platform. There is *one* good reason, why NAS vendors prefer
>FreeBSD these days: the lack of NFS4 ACLs.

A hearty +1 for this also. But we all know who to blame for
Linux lack of RichACLs (but I'm not going to disinter the
bodies here on this list :-).