From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Tokarev Subject: Re: [Acl-Devel] Status of ACL patches regarding inclusion in the standard kernel? Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 23:46:14 +0400 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <3DA33606.9050702@tls.msk.ru> References: <200210081357.17742.shaggy@austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Tobias Burnus , acl-devel@bestbits.at, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input) List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org 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