extended acls..

extended acls..

[Sriram Ramkrishna]

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.

sri

-- 
-- Sriram Ramkrishna (sriram.ramkrishna_@@_@.gmail.com (remove _@@_)

Re: extended acls..

[Josef Bacik]

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,

Josef 

Re: extended acls..

[Sriram Ramkrishna]

Hi Josef,

Thanks, I will take it to linux-fsdevel.

sri

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> 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? =C2=A0=
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. =C2=A0F=
or
>> instance, we would need acls to deal with controlled countries if we
>> are sharing data with them etc. =C2=A0It is a big shame that there i=
s 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. =C2=A0If there is a place I can go tha=
t 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. =C2=A0Its not going to do=
 much good to
> implement yet another extended ACL implementation in BTRFS if no othe=
r 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. =C2=A0Thank=
s,
>
> Josef
>



--=20
-- Sriram Ramkrishna (sriram.ramkrishna_@@_@.gmail.com (remove _@@_)
--
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

Re: extended acls..

[Chris Mason]

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

Re: extended acls..

[jim owens]

I would suggest another step is more important than starting
with fsdev.  You need to talk to the security people.

There is no point in storing and fetching ACLs if there
is no mechanism to operate on them.

filesystems don't create security policies.

jim

Re: extended acls..

[Claudio Martins]

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