lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Oct]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v8 00/41] Richacls
From
Date
On Oct 6, 2015, at 7:12 AM, Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 02:58:36PM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
>>> I think the point is that a new VFS feature that is easy to integrate in
>>> multiple filesystems should have support for those filesystems. A decade
>>> ago, just having ext* support would probably have been fine, but these days,
>>> XFS, BTRFS, and F2FS are used just as much (if not more) on production
>>> systems as ext4, and having support for them right from the start would
>>> significantly help with adoption of richacls.
>>
>> That's one reason. The other is that actually wiring it up for more
>> than a single consumer shows its actually reasonable generic.
>
> The filesystem interface now is the same as for POSIX ACLs, used by a
> dozen or so filesystems already.
>
>> I don't want to end up with a situration like Posix ACLs again where
>> different file systems using different on disk formats again.
>
> Any file system could choose a different on-disk format than the one
> that ext4 currently uses, but I don't see a reason why any should.
> Apart from uid / gid mappings that is the same as the user-space xattr
> format. Network file systems like NFSv4 and CIFS with their predefined
> over-the-wire formats obviously are another story.

And any disk filesystems that have their own non-POSIX ACLs, such as HFS, NTFS, ZFS would presumably also need to map the in-kernel Richacl format to their on-disk format.

Cheers, Andreas





[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-10-06 22:41    [W:0.144 / U:2.100 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site