Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+Revised\s+extended\s+attributes\s+interface\s*$/: 50 ]

Total 50 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH] Revised extended attributes interface (score: 1)
Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 14:32:10 +1100
hi folks, Here is the revised interface. I believe it takes into account the issues raised so far - further suggestions are also welcome, of course. Man pages for the system calls are available from
/archives/xfs/2001-12/msg00061.html (26,169 bytes)

2. Re: [PATCH] Revised extended attributes interface (score: 1)
Author: Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 09:08:12 +0000
At 03:32 05/12/01, Nathan Scott wrote: Here is the revised interface. I believe it takes into account the issues raised so far - further suggestions are also welcome, of course. Hi, Looks good to me.
/archives/xfs/2001-12/msg00069.html (11,709 bytes)

3. Re: [PATCH] Revised extended attributes interface (score: 1)
Author: Daniel Phillips <phillips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 04:05:32 +0100
Hi Nathan, I still don't like the class parsing inside the kernel, it's hard to see what is good about that. Is there a difference between these two?: long sys_setxattr(char *path, char *name, void *
/archives/xfs/2001-12/msg00144.html (9,835 bytes)

4. Re: [PATCH] Revised extended attributes interface (score: 1)
Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 16:41:31 +1100
hey there. I guess it ultimately comes down to simplicity. The IRIX interfaces have this separation of name and namespace - each operation has to indicate which namespace is to be used. That becomes
/archives/xfs/2001-12/msg00147.html (11,201 bytes)

5. Re: [PATCH] Revised extended attributes interface (score: 1)
Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 16:46:25 +1100
No compelling reason - I've switched to your version, new patch is here: http://oss.sgi.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/linux-2.4-xfs/cmd/xfsmisc/xattr.patch cheers. -- Nathan
/archives/xfs/2001-12/msg00148.html (9,966 bytes)

6. Re: [PATCH] Revised extended attributes interface (score: 1)
Author: Daniel Phillips <phillips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 16:25:41 +0100
Right now we have two namespaces, user and system. That's one bit of information, and the proposal is to represent it with 5-7 bytes, passing it on every call, and decoding it with a memcmp or simila
/archives/xfs/2001-12/msg00175.html (12,325 bytes)

7. Re: [PATCH] Revised extended attributes interface (score: 1)
Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 10:15:17 +1100
hi Daniel, Andreas and the security folk have long been investigating "trusted" and "owner" namespaces too. See Andreas' web pages for more discussion on those. I see no reason to impose such arbitra
/archives/xfs/2001-12/msg00202.html (14,263 bytes)

8. Re: [PATCH] Revised extended attributes interface (score: 1)
Author: Daniel Phillips <phillips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 02:45:50 +0100
Could you describe them, please? -- Daniel
/archives/xfs/2001-12/msg00213.html (10,864 bytes)

9. Re: [PATCH] Revised extended attributes interface (score: 1)
Author: Daniel Phillips <phillips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 03:03:43 +0100
It may well be, however, the one call that has flags, set, is looking a little irregular sitting there on its own. We're inventing an API here for which we don't have a lot of guidance from existing
/archives/xfs/2001-12/msg00214.html (11,726 bytes)

10. Re: [PATCH] Revised extended attributes interface (score: 1)
Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 14:51:31 +1100
hi Daniel, Not sure what to say to that ... the API is practical, flags seem to make sense for that call (the flags give the slightly different "set" semantics, but it is still "set"), IMO they don't
/archives/xfs/2001-12/msg00219.html (13,973 bytes)

11. Re: [PATCH] Revised extended attributes interface (score: 1)
Author: "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 20:20:36 +0000
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". Is there no consensus on this? In previous pr
/archives/xfs/2001-12/msg00232.html (11,050 bytes)

12. Re: [PATCH] Revised extended attributes interface (score: 1)
Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 15:58:41 +1100
hi Stephen, 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 abo
/archives/xfs/2001-12/msg00240.html (11,807 bytes)

13. Re: [PATCH] Revised extended attributes interface (score: 1)
Author: Hans Reiser <reiser@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 23:17:21 +0300
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 ty
/archives/xfs/2001-12/msg00242.html (11,875 bytes)

14. Re: [PATCH] Revised extended attributes interface (score: 1)
Author: "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 11:52:09 +0000
Unfortunately, if there are many filesystems wanting to use posix ACLs, then standardising the API is still desirable. But the ACL encoding is still hobbled: there's no namespace for credentials oth
/archives/xfs/2001-12/msg00255.html (14,839 bytes)

15. Re: [PATCH] Revised extended attributes interface (score: 1)
Author: "Peter J. Braam" <braam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 08:00:03 -0700
Stephen, Do you have a ref for that? Thanks!
/archives/xfs/2001-12/msg00257.html (11,314 bytes)

16. Re: [PATCH] Revised extended attributes interface (score: 1)
Author: "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 15:56:28 +0000
http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/usenix01/freenix01/ioannidis.html Cheers, Stephen
/archives/xfs/2001-12/msg00263.html (11,812 bytes)

17. Re: [PATCH] Revised extended attributes interface (score: 1)
Author: "Mr. James W. Laferriere" <babydr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 11:00:06 -0500 (EST)
Hello Stephen , Is this the only attribution ? Just love those 'we won't share security info with you unless you are member or pay.' . Sorry , JimL +--+ +--+
/archives/xfs/2001-12/msg00264.html (12,126 bytes)

18. Re: [PATCH] Revised extended attributes interface (score: 1)
Author: "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 16:15:33 +0000
There are other references in the paper: I've appended them below. One, in particular, seems to talk about quite similar concepts: http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/sec2000/acha
/archives/xfs/2001-12/msg00269.html (13,933 bytes)

19. Re: [PATCH] Revised extended attributes interface (score: 1)
Author: John Stoffel <stoffel@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:01:52 -0500
Probably. Excuse me? This is a paper presented at a conference, not a security bug report in existing code. I can totally understand having to pay for proceedings from a conference. John
/archives/xfs/2001-12/msg00273.html (11,175 bytes)

20. Re: [PATCH] Revised extended attributes interface (score: 1)
Author: Timothy Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 12:22:58 +1100
True. [credential examples deleted] So you are particularly interested in more general "qualifiers" (in posix acl entry speak:). Some people are also interested in more general "permissions" for ACEs
/archives/xfs/2001-12/msg00293.html (14,014 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu