From: Carl Beame (beame@eircom.net)
Date: 11/28/02-05:10:23 AM Z
From: Carl Beame <beame@eircom.net> Subject: Re: ACL ordering Message-Id: <2002Nov28.111026+0000@carl> Date: 28 Nov 2002 11:10:23 +0000 On Thu Nov 28 00:30:51 2002, Eric Sedlar wrote: > > Therefore, to really achieve Windows interoperability (let alone usability), > protocols like NFSv4 should avoid allowing deny ACEs after any grant ACEs. This > also relaxes the requirement to maintain strict ACE ordering, since ordering is > irrelevant when processing denies, and ordering is irrelevant when processing > grants (other than as an optimization). I didn't see anything in the spec about > what order the inherited ACEs should be placed in (for example relative to a > default ACL that might be defined on the server on a per-user basis), so making > this ordering requirement clear simplifies the work. > This is actually incorrect. The user interfaces which ship with Windows NT order the ACEs in a specific order, but the ACL can be stored in an NTFS filesystem in ANY order and are evaluated as is defined in the specification. It is easy enough to write a GUI which allows you to order then any way you want. - Carl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 03/04/05-01:50:32 AM Z CST