Re: [Acl-Devel] Status of ACL patches regarding inclusion in the standard kernel?

[Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru>]

Dave Kleikamp wrote:
[]
> On Tuesday 08 October 2002 13:02, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
[]
>>Some of the conversions between representations could be avoided with
>>a different system call interface (i.e., separate system calls for
>>ACLs, etc.), but this would confuse the conceptually clean xattr
>>interface.
[]
>>Another issue are the [gse]et_posix_acl() VFS operations. They are
>>intended to provide fast access to ACLs to in-kernel code. Only
>>get_posix_acl() is used by NFS at the moment; some think that all
>>accesses should be done via the xattr VFS operations.
> 
> I think that all ACL access should either go through the xattr calls or 
> through [gs]et-posix_acl, but not both.  If we allow the user-space to 

Just a random thought (sorry if it was discussed before) - I don't
see why every filesystem with it's own unique layout etc should store
ACLs as xattrs - there may be different implementation especially for
ACLs but no xattrs at all (at the beginning of the "ACL era", almost
everyone agreed that ACL/xattrs subsystem should be more-or-less
universal, allowing many different layouts/concepts (think NTFS
ACLs vs POSIX ACLs) to be used).  Well, conversion routines may
exists (if at all possible), but in some cases this will be an
overkill.

/mjt