From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Claudio Martins Subject: Re: extended acls.. Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 21:01:50 +0100 Message-ID: <200905192101.50836.ctpm@ist.utl.pt> References: <42ab06770905190950x5077edb0s3c55bd1c39ebeebe@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org To: Sriram Ramkrishna Return-path: In-Reply-To: <42ab06770905190950x5077edb0s3c55bd1c39ebeebe@mail.gmail.com> List-ID: On Tuesday 19 May 2009, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: > > 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 o= f > 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. > Hi, As other people on this list have already said, the right implementati= on=20 might not be through BTRFS. But IMHO if you are looking at extended ACL= s=20 beyond what is already provided by many linux filesystems, you could lo= ok at=20 NFS4 ACLs, which have semantics which should fit Linux and Posix better= than=20 AFS ACLs. Also, AFS ACLs being per directory and not per file, would be= less=20 flexible than NFS4's. Regards Cl=C3=A1udio -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" = in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html