[Gluster-devel] [PATCH v9] vfs_glusterfs: Samba VFS module for glusterfs

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Wed, 2013-05-29 at 16:32 -0700, Anand Avati wrote:
> On 5/29/13 3:47 PM, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-05-29 at 15:37 -0700, Anand Avati wrote:
> >> On 5/29/13 3:27 PM, Anand Avati wrote:
> >>>>> On 05/29/2013 07:21 AM, Anand Avati wrote:
> >>>>> Implement a Samba VFS plugin for glusterfs based on gluster's gfapi.
> >>>>> This is a "bottom" vfs plugin (not something to be stacked on top of
> >>>>> another module), and translates (most) calls into closest actions
> >>>>> on gfapi.
> >>>> Anand before we push this in samba I would like to have an answer about
> >>>> access control.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have tried to find out exactly how access control is handled but the
> >>>> code is complex.
> >>>>
> >>>> However what I found so far is not encouraging.
> >>>>
> >>>> I see things like:
> >>>>
> >>>> #define GF_MAX_AUX_GROUPS 200
> >>>>
> >>>> and then in syncop_create_frame() that value is used to cap the max
> >>>> number of auxiliary groups.
> >>>>
> >>>> In Linux the max number of auxiliary groups is 65536 and we have seen
> >>>> easily 2k auxiliary groups attached to a user in Windows domains.
> >>>
> >>> Currently it is artificially limited to a number. I will work on making
> >>> this dynamic. However this will be a completely internal change to
> >>> glusterfs with no changes in either API or vfs_glusterfs. Thanks for the
> >>> feedback.
> >>
> >> I have started working on this. Can we interpret this as a limitation of
> >> glusterfs, rather than an issue with the VFS module?
> >>
> >> Let me know if there are any blockers for the merge.
> >
> > What it might mean is that we want the minimum version we accept via
> > pkg-config raised, as it's going to be very difficult to configure test
> > for (unless you happen to expose that in a public header).
> >
> > That kind of thing leads to all manner of subtle bugs (I've spent days
> > on them personally).
> >
> 
> 
> Andrew,
>    The pkg-config dependency number used in the v9 patch is for the yet 
> unreleased glusterfs version. The API number 4 will be published in the 
> next glusterfs (3.4.0) release. Support for large group list is already 
> in review - http://review.gluster.org/5111/ and will be part of the next 
> release. Since we are doing the integration off git repos of both 
> projects, the dependency version is still fuzzy.
> 
> Is this still considered a blocker?

No, that's exactly what I was going to suggest.

I'll deal with this today.

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org