Re: [nfsv4] Files without ACLs?

[Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen at suse.de>]

On Wednesday, 26. July 2006 22:50, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 12:25:46PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > The two strategies I can imagine are to somehow indicate to the client
> > that a particular file "has no ACL", or to make up an ACL which
> > represents the file mode. This case is different from an empty
> > (zero-entry) ACL, for which RFC3530 defines that the result is undefined.
> > (I interpret undefined as either always denied or always allowed, rather
> > than defined by the mask attribute).
>
> It could mean whatever you want, but I think every current
> implementation probably takes that to mean a deny, and the current 4.1
> draft says it's a deny.  (Assuming it's just a case of reaching the end
> of the ACL while still having permission bits neither allowed nor
> denied.)

Ack. My point was that we do not want to have it that in case of an empty ACL, 
the mask attribute must be considered to determine access.

Andreas

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
nfsv4 at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4