Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 Dec 2001 13:42:14 +1100 | From | Nathan Scott <> | Subject | reiser4 (was Re: [PATCH] Revised extended attributes interface) |
| |
hi Hans,
On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 11:17:21PM +0300, Hans Reiser wrote: > Nathan Scott wrote: > > > >In a way there's consensus wrt how to do POSIX ACLs on Linux > >now, as both the ext2/ext3 and XFS ACL projects will be using > >the same tools, libraries, etc. In terms of other ACL types, > >I don't know of anyone actively working on any. > > > We are taking a very different approach to EAs (and thus to ACLs) as > described in brief at www.namesys.com/v4/v4.html. We don't expect > anyone to take us seriously on it before it works, but silence while > coding does not equal consensus.;-) > > In essence, we think that if a file can't do what an EA can do, then you > need to make files able to do more.
We did read through your page awhile ago. It wasn't clear to me how you were addressing Anton's questions here: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=97260371413867&w=2 (I couldn't find a reply in the archive, but may have missed it).
We were concentrating on something that could be fs-independent, so the lack of answers there put us off a bit, and the dependence on a reiser4() syscall is pretty filesystem-specific too (I guess if your solution is intended to be a reiserfs-specific one, then the questions above are meaningless).
I was curious on another thing also - in the section titled ``The Usual Resolution Of These Flaws Is A One-Off Solution'', talking about security attributes interfaces, your page says:
"Linus said that we can have a system call to use as our experimental plaything in this. With what I have in mind for the API, one rather flexible system call is all we want..."
How did you manage to get him to say that? We were flamed for suggesting a syscall which multiplexed all extended attributes commands though the one interface (because its semantics were not clearly defined & it could be extended with new commands, like ioctl/quotactl/...), and we've also had no luck so far in getting either our original interface, nor any revised syscall interfaces (which aren't like that anymore) accepted by Linus.
many thanks.
-- Nathan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |