Re: support for mknod to windows now in cifs vfs

Re: support for mknod to windows now in cifs vfs

[Andrew Bartlett]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1120 bytes --]

On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 13:55 -0600, Steve French wrote:
> Andrew Bartlett wrote: 
> > On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 22:30 -0600, Steve French wrote:
> >   
> > > I added the code to cifs vfs to enable it do mknod of block and 
> > > chardevice even if the server does not support the Unix extensions (such 
> > > as Windows).  This requires the "sfu" mount option to be specified 
> > >     
> > 
> > Any reason why this isn't on by default? 
> > 
> > Andrew Bartlett
> >   
> 
> I agree with most of Martin's points - even on Windows there are a few
> (possibly with Vista) three ways e.g. to do symlinks.  Although sfu is
> the most important way to do it it is a bit slower too.

Isn't there also the mac 'magic file size' thing too?  Did that change,
or should we also cope with servers holding those files?

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Samba Developer, SuSE Labs, Novell Inc.        http://suse.de
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
Student Network Administrator, Hawker College  http://hawkerc.net

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: support for mknod to windows now in cifs vfs

[Steve French]

Martin Koeppe wrote:

>
> For the mapping of the lower 9 mode bits to NT security entries, I 
> just found a good description from Corinna at 
> http://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/ntsec.html#ntsec-mapping
>
> I encountered the same ACE reordering in explorer with sfu files, but 
> didn't think about these deny entries enough. At least in this regard, 
> cygwin and sfu seem to be compatible. So, Steve, this may be 
> interesting to you for implementing chmod.
>
> And it might be of interest to the samba people, if they decide to 
> implement an sfu option on the server side.
>
>
> Martin
>
Martin,
Once again thank you for finding useful data on hard problems.   I don't 
think this will be too hard to code into the cifs vfs (I also wish ntfs 
already had worker functions for setfacl and chmod similar to this...) 
but now the interesting question is how fast it is worth coding and 
getting in mainline -
1)  acl and chmod mapping (ie the ntfs security descriptor like way, 
rather than Samba-only posix acl way),  and
2) Kerberos/SPNEGO session setup

are the two most common requests for the cifs vfs these days.   The 
upcall for Kerberos support is begun but not complete, and it has taken 
longer than I had hoped partly due to lack of examples - the only uses 
of the new cn.ko (Linux "connector") posted so far are simpler 
(notification up, rather than "request up /response down").