We are working on a change to illumos (and NexentaStor) to revive
acl_mode... lots and lots of people have had very bad experiences as a
result of that particular change.
- Garrett
On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 07:32 +0000, Ryan John wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Frank Lahm [mailto:frankl...@googlemail.com]
> > Sent: 25 January 2011 14:50
> > To: Ryan John
> > Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> > Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Changed ACL behavior in snv_151 ?
>
> > John,
>
> > welcome onboard!
>
> > 2011/1/25 Ryan John <john.r...@bsse.ethz.ch>:
> >> I’m sharing file systems using a smb and nfs, and since I’ve upgraded to
> >> snv_151, when I do a chmod from an NFS client, I lose all the NFSv4 ACLs.
>
> > <http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=134162>
>
> > I'd summarize as follows:
> > in order to play nice with Windows ACL semantics via builtin CIFS,
> > they choose the approach of throwing away ACLs on chmod(). Makes
> > Windows happy, others not so.
>
> > -f
> Hi Frank,
>
> This really breaks our whole setup.
> Under snv_134 our users were happy with Windows ACLs, and NFSv3 and NFSv4
> Linux clients.
> They all worked very well together. The only problem we had with the deny
> ACLs, was when using the MacOS "Finder"
>
> I don't think there's a way we can tell our users not to do a chmod.
>
> Was it a result of PSARC/2009/029 ?
> http://arc.opensolaris.org/caselog/PSARC/2010/029/20100126_mark.shellenbaum
> If so, I think that was implemented around snv_137.
> This would also mean it's the same in Illumos.
>
> Regards
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
