From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Mason Subject: Re: extended acls.. Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 14:21:10 -0400 Message-ID: <20090519182110.GA15389@think> References: <42ab06770905190950x5077edb0s3c55bd1c39ebeebe@mail.gmail.com> <20090519180608.GC7472@dhcp231-156.rdu.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Sriram Ramkrishna , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org To: Josef Bacik Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090519180608.GC7472@dhcp231-156.rdu.redhat.com> List-ID: On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 02:06:08PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 09:50:42AM -0700, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: > > Howdy, > > > > I'm curious if there is any plans to add extended acls ala AFS? The > > reason I ask is that it seems in Linux we don't seem have moved off of > > POSIX style acls and I think there is definitely at least from my > > perspective that having a richer set of acl would be needed. For > > instance, we would need acls to deal with controlled countries if we > > are sharing data with them etc. It is a big shame that there is no > > RFC for extended ACLs. > > > > Also, I would like to help out with development, I'm a newbie as far > > as kernel level hacking goes. If there is a place I can go that I can > > start off small that would be lovely. > > > > Extending ACLs beyond POSIX ACLs is a more generic topic that should probably be > discussed elsewhere, perhaps linux-fsdevel. Its not going to do much good to > implement yet another extended ACL implementation in BTRFS if no other Linux fs > has the ability to use the same feature, so figuring out the details of > extending ACLs should be done before doing them in btrfs. Thanks, > I'd agree with this. The idea behind the btrfs acl/xattr implementation is to be generic enough to support whatever new ideas people come up with. But, I don't intend on driving new acl frameworks through btrfs before they are available in other filesystems. -chris