cp: --preserve={context,xattr,acl}

cp: --preserve={context,xattr,acl}

[Jim Meyering]

Currently, upstream cp can selectively preserve a few different attributes.
>From the documentation:

  `-p'
  `--preserve[=ATTRIBUTE_LIST]'
       Preserve the specified attributes of the original files.  If
       specified, the ATTRIBUTE_LIST must be a comma-separated list of
       one or more of the following strings:

      `mode' ...
      `ownership'
      `timestamps'
      `links'
      `all'

       Using `--preserve' with no ATTRIBUTE_LIST is equivalent to
       `--preserve=mode,ownership,timestamps'.

       In the absence of this option, each destination file is created
       with the permissions of the corresponding source file, minus the
       bits set in the umask and minus the set-user-ID and set-group-ID
       bits.  *Note File permissions::.

The SELinux patches add "context" to the list.
and upstream treats ACLs like "mode".

However, with XATTR support, I may well add two more: "xattr" and "acl".

But then there'd be overlap between --preserve=xattr and --preserve=context,
Since I presume the latter subsumes the former.  Right?

So if both were specified on a selinux-enabled system,
would there be any point in doing anything XATTR-specific?

What do you think?

Jim

--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

Re: cp: --preserve={context,xattr,acl}

[James Antill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 982 bytes --]

On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 20:03 +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Currently, upstream cp can selectively preserve a few different attributes.
> From the documentation:
[...]
> The SELinux patches add "context" to the list.
> and upstream treats ACLs like "mode".
> 
> However, with XATTR support, I may well add two more: "xattr" and "acl".
> 
> But then there'd be overlap between --preserve=xattr and --preserve=context,
> Since I presume the latter subsumes the former.  Right?
> 
> So if both were specified on a selinux-enabled system,
> would there be any point in doing anything XATTR-specific?

 With tar I had xattr imply acl and selinux, but then they could be used
individually like: --preserve=xattrs --no-preserve=selinux (does generic
user xattrs and acls, but not selinux context).
 Although the tar patches haven't been accepted upstream yet (they are
just before a stable release, so aren't accepting features).

-- 
James Antill <jantill@redhat.com>

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]