Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1240970

Re: [PATCH v8 00/41] Richacls

From Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [PATCH v8 00/41] Richacls
Date 2015-10-06 22:30 +0200
Message-ID <qgH23-8u5-23@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References (1 earlier) <qfKY1-FS-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <qgiZH-7ez-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <qgj9p-7qa-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <qgxcm-2zE-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <qgAjT-7di-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

On Oct 6, 2015, at 7:12 AM, Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 02:58:36PM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
>>> I think the point is that a new VFS feature that is easy to integrate in
>>> multiple filesystems should have support for those filesystems.  A decade
>>> ago, just having ext* support would probably have been fine, but these days,
>>> XFS, BTRFS, and F2FS are used just as much (if not more) on production
>>> systems as ext4, and having support for them right from the start would
>>> significantly help with adoption of richacls.
>> 
>> That's one reason.  The other is that actually wiring it up for more
>> than a single consumer shows its actually reasonable generic.
> 
> The filesystem interface now is the same as for POSIX ACLs, used by a
> dozen or so filesystems already.
> 
>> I don't want to end up with a situration like Posix ACLs again where
>> different file systems using different on disk formats again.
> 
> Any file system could choose a different on-disk format than the one
> that ext4 currently uses, but I don't see a reason why any should.
> Apart from uid / gid mappings that is the same as the user-space xattr
> format. Network file systems like NFSv4 and CIFS with their predefined
> over-the-wire formats obviously are another story.

And any disk filesystems that have their own non-POSIX ACLs, such as HFS, NTFS, ZFS would presumably also need to map the in-kernel Richacl format to their on-disk format.

Cheers, Andreas





Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Re: [PATCH v8 00/41] Richacls Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> - 2015-10-06 12:00 +0200
  Re: [PATCH v8 00/41] Richacls Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com> - 2015-10-06 15:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v8 00/41] Richacls Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca> - 2015-10-06 22:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v8 00/41] Richacls Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 23:00 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v8 00/41] Richacls Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> - 2015-10-07 10:00 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v8 00/41] Richacls Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com> - 2015-10-07 15:40 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v8 00/41] Richacls Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com> - 2015-10-07 17:20 +0200

csiph-web