lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Dec]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    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 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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:14    [W:0.055 / U:0.024 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site