[OpenAFS] Re: directories in afs have "owners"?

[Adam Megacz]

Derrick J Brashear <shadow@dementia.org> writes:
> And it's directories, not files, for which the implicit ownership
> being talked about comes into play.

Okay.  Would it be correct to say that the ownership of non-directory
files matters only for the "extra permission check" ("u+rw" bits are
checked in addition to AFS ACLs)?  Or are there other situations where
this information gets used?

Does the "group" of a directory (or file) in AFS space have any
meaning?

Also, since PTS userids don't have to match local UNIX userids, do UNIX
applications get confused when they create a file and fstat()->uid !=
getuid()?  Or just "no more confused than usual when dealing with AFS
file semantics" (ie only very rarely)?

Lastly, is there any reason for files to have ownership other than
preventing dumb users from clobbering their own home directory's
permissions?  It seems like there would have been some other way to
accomplish this with a smaller "semantic footprint"...

  - a

-- 
PGP/GPG: 5C9F F366 C9CF 2145 E770  B1B8 EFB1 462D A146 C380

Q: "Won't the pendulum swing back?"
A: "It has never been a pendulum. Think tectonic plates instead."
                                              -- from patrick.net