On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Ivan Rayner wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 14:15:24 -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 12:04:00AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > xfs already honors an extended attribute for files only, the
> > > > maintainers believe that honoring such a thing for directories is
> > > > evil.
> > >
> > > If 'the maintainers' really said such a thing then I disagree with
> > > the maintainers. Honoring it for directories should be fine and I
> > > can think of applications for it.
> > fine look up the list archives if you don't believe me. when the
> > change was first commited Ivan used the word evil specifically when
> > referring to nodump on dirs. there was a more detailed discussion a
> > few monthes later, thier concern appears primarily security.
> By the "maintainers" you mean me, since I was the one that implemented
> I don't remember using the word 'evil' -- obviously I was just
> It wasn't done for directories for 2 main reasons, that I recall:
> 1. Security. I didn't like the idea of the owner of a directory
> deciding whether files, that might be hidden in the depths of
> a directory tree and could be owned by others, get dumped or
> not. To allow this would be ... evil! :)
as i argued before
security concerns are blown away if you thing this as administrator stuff
(via a reserved namespace using attributes).
> 2. Simplicity and performance. To expand this for directories in
> xfsdump would mean a fair bit more work (which would not have
> been approved as a project), and probably a real performance
> hit during dump processing.
These are both real concerns. Regarding performance, probably you can
trigger the extra directory pruning stage or whatever else via a flag to
Just speculating ;).
Anyway, thanks the very good work.