From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: Storing additional Information to a file (eg. ACLs) -> a solution? Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 14:40:33 -0800 Message-ID: <40202361.9080609@namesys.com> References: <1075756127.2350.29.camel@schlappix.schnulli.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <1075756127.2350.29.camel@schlappix.schnulli.de> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Heinz-Josef Claes Cc: ReiserFS List Heinz-Josef Claes wrote: >Hi, > >I just read the article from the first side of namesys.com. I have an >idea about how to generally store security related attributes in a fast >way which uses only a minimum of storage. > >First of all, I have absolutely now idea about filesystem layout; so >don't hesitate to blame me that it's nonsense what I'm writing here, but >perhaps it's not ... > > >assumptions for my suggestion to make sense: >1. securtity related attributes for files can be stored in (small) >files. >2. lots of files will probably have the same security related attributes >3. you don't want to store security related attributes in lots of little >files (eg. bad perforance) >4. it's fast to calc an md5sum (or something similar) for a short series >of bytes (a short file) > > >the solution: >1. take the first security related attribute and store it in a special >(hidden) directory. The name of the file is the md5sum of it. The file >which "points" to these permissions stores the md5sum or some kind of >sequence number (which can be smaller the the 16 byte of the md5sum) of >that little security related attribute file (sraf). This sraf counts the >number of "links" to it by the normal link counter of the filesystem. >2. take the second security related attribute and calc the md5sum. If >it's new, do the same as described in 1. If it's same the md5sum of an >existing sraf, make a "link" to it. >3. If you delete a file, decrease the "link" count in the sraf. If the >link count is zero, delete the sraf. > > >This should be easy to implement, space efficient, fast and very >flexible. (Reiserfs has no problems with lots of files in one >directory.) You only have to think about what to do if the link count of >an sraf is exceeded. This should be solvable in an easy way. I do not >make any suggestion about this because I do not know anything about the >internals of reiserfs (my solution would be stupid). > > >Regards, >and apologize my bad english > >Heinz-Josef Claes > >PS: This is basically the same idea as in storebackup ;-) > > > Interesting. Essentially, it is a form of compression. If the unique values all easily fit into ram, it is a good thing.