[lkml]   [2001]   [Dec]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    Subjectreiser4 (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 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:
    (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.

    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 13:14    [W:0.030 / U:1.708 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site