From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Masover Subject: Re: reiser4 plugins Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 08:26:12 -0500 Message-ID: <42CBDBF4.30801@slaphack.com> References: <200507060251.j662p7OC005227@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <200507060251.j662p7OC005227@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Horst von Brand Cc: Hubert Chan , Chet Hosey , Kevin Bowen , Hans Reiser , Kyle Moffett , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Lincoln Dale , Gregory Maxwell , Jeff Garzik , Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ReiserFS List Horst von Brand wrote: > Hubert Chan wrote: > >>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 03:41:00 -0400, Chet Hosey said: >> >>>Horst von Brand wrote: >>> >>>>And who says that a normal user isn't allowed to annotate each and >>>>every file with its purpose or something else? > > >>Explain how you currently allow users to annotate arbitrary files. > > > By keeping annotations /outside/ the files. > > [...] > > >>The situation is even better with file-as-dir. If the administrator >>wants to allow users to edit the description metadata for the file foo, >>the administrator can set the appropriate permissions for >>foo/.../description, and keep foo read-only. > > > So now root is responsible in exquisite detail for random other users being > able to keep info about my files? If it's the general info that's associated with the file, and may even be stored inside the file, then yes, that's fair. Although I could certainly imagine foo/.../descriptions being a directory that's world-writable, allowing each user to maintain their own file inside of it. You can even set these per-user descriptions to be stored somewhere else, like the user's home directory, and that could work for CDs. >>Actually, you could use something like unionfs to allow users to keep >>their own annotations without affecting everyone else's. > > > Again, root has to mount that stuff for each and every user? Why is that a problem? Put it in a script. Mount each user's unionfs at boot. And it's "something like unionfs" -- maybe it's a feature of metafs or reiserfs that we haven't thought of yet. It certainly can't be unionfs as it stands, as unionfs doesn't work on top of any reiser.