From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 06:59:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 06:59:57 -0400 Received: from harpo.it.uu.se ([130.238.12.34]:35290 "EHLO harpo.it.uu.se") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 06:59:56 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 13:03:23 +0200 (MET DST) From: Mikael Pettersson Message-Id: <200208011103.NAA01989@harpo.it.uu.se> To: neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au Subject: NFS ACL compatibility [was: Re: [2.6] The List, pass #2] Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 1 Aug 2002 10:34:23 +1000 (EST), Neil Brown wrote: >Well, given that the protocol specification isn't 100% finalised, it's >not clear that pushing for inclusion now is entirely sensible. We >don't want people to be using an NFSv4 on Linux that is incompatible >in some subtle way with other vendors. > >Also, I suspect that NFSv4 will be fairly localised in the changes it >makes and could well go in to 2.6.10 of whatever (afterall, reiserfs >went in at 2.4.2). > >There are some changes that NFSv4 would like to make that affect >common code, such as making open(,O_EXCL) work for a networked >filesystem, but we can live without that (as we do with NFSv3), but >hopefully that functionality will get in before halloween anyway. Speaking of NFS compatibility: can Linux' NFS server implement ACLs in a way that's compatible with Solaris NFS clients? A sysadmin over here says this isn't the case, because Sun apparently stepped outside of the NFSv3 protocol and handles ACLs with a separate RPC program. The significance of this is that unless Linux' NFS server can be made fully compatible with Solaris NFS clients, we can't use Linux for the new high-performance NFS servers we need to install this fall, forcing us to go with Solaris and fairly expensive Sun HW. /Mikael