[lkml]   [2004]   [May]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [ANNOUNCEMENT PATCH COW] proof of concept impementation of cowlinks
On Sun, 9 May 2004 23:15:33 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Jörn Engel <> writes:
> > 3 copyfile - new copyfile() system call
> >
> Question about sys_copyfile.
> Is the intention that a new file with completely new permissions
> be created?
> Some people have wanted a copyfile that copies all of the extra
> metadata user/group/acls.
> I currently see technical merit in both approaches.
> Looking at the CIFS information it appears that the CopyFILE RPC
> copies the permissions. It is not at all clear about that, and
> the fact it appears to copy permissions may simply be a specification
> bug. Given that FAT does not really have permissions, let alone
> extended attributes it would be an easy mistake to make.
> In the general case you cannot copy permissions from one file to
> another, either you don't have those permissions yourself or the
> target file system may not support them all. Not copying
> permissions leads to a simpler implementation with the burden
> of the work left to user space. What is not done is a loop through
> the extended attributes.

Unless someone finds a good reason to change this, I prefer to create
new permissions and not copy the acl's. That way, I can also
copyfile() a file belonging to someone else, as long as I have read
access to it.


Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good,
you'll have to ram them down people's throats.
-- Howard Aiken quoted by Ken Iverson quoted by Jim Horning quoted by
Raph Levien, 1979
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:03    [W:0.213 / U:2.544 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site