[Top] [All Lists]

reiser4 (was Re: [PATCH] Revised extended attributes interface)

To: Hans Reiser <reiser@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Andreas Gruenbacher <ag@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: reiser4 (was Re: [PATCH] Revised extended attributes interface)
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 13:42:14 +1100
Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <3C127551.90305@xxxxxxxxxxx>; from reiser@xxxxxxxxxxx on Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 11:17:21PM +0300
References: <20011205143209.C44610@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20011207202036.J2274@xxxxxxxxxx> <20011208155841.A56289@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3C127551.90305@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
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:
(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.


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