xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] Revised extended attributes interface

To: "Stephen C . Tweedie" <sct@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andreas Gruenbacher <ag@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revised extended attributes interface
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 15:58:41 +1100
Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20011207202036.J2274@redhat.com>; from sct@redhat.com on Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 08:20:36PM +0000
References: <20011205143209.C44610@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> <20011207202036.J2274@redhat.com>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 08:20:36PM +0000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> Hi,
> 

hi Stephen,

> This is looking OK as far as EAs go.  However, there is still no
> mention of ACLs specifically, except an oblique reference to
> "system.posix_acl_access".  

Yup - there's little mention of ACLs because they are only an
optional, higher-level consumer of the API, & so didn't seem
appropriate to document here.

We have implemented POSIX ACLs above this interface - there
is source to new versions of Andreas' user tools here:
http://oss.sgi.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/linux-2.4-xfs/cmd/acl2
These have been tested with XFS and seem to work fine, so we
are ready to transition over from our old implementation to
this new one.

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.

The existence of a POSIX ACL implementation using attributes
system.posix_acl_access and system.posix_acl_default doesn't
preclude other types of ACLs from being implemented (obviously
using different attributes) as well of course, if someone had
an itch to scratch.

cheers.

-- 
Nathan


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>