From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nathan Scott Subject: Re: [RFC] POSIX ACL kernel infrastructure Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 12:02:23 +1000 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20020809020223.GF731@frodo> References: <200208041546.35234.agruen@suse.de> <200208041614.47152.agruen@suse.de> <20020804153349.A28109@infradead.org> <200208051411.33286.agruen@suse.de> <20020805132832.B5301@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Linux-FSDevel Return-path: To: Andreas Gruenbacher , Christoph Hellwig Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020805132832.B5301@infradead.org> List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org hi Andreas, On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 01:28:32PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 02:11:33PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > > > >From user space, yes. The get_posix_acl operation is currently used in nfsd; > > going via the xattr operations would be too expensive here. The set_posix_acl > > operation is indeed not used so far; I think it makes sense to add it for > > completeness' sake. > > I'm not fully convienced. Nor am I (I don't buy either the too expensive argument or the need for unused ops). It also begins to add unnecessary stuff to the VFS inode ops - when capabilities, MAC labels, and misc other attributes come along, we don't want to be adding in ops for each of them too (esp. considering many filesystems do not support extended attributes at all). IMO getxattr() should be all we ever need here. MS_POSIXACL from your earlier mail is a Good Thing, I think - I'll switch XFS over to use that when I get some time (instead of the inode flag we are currently using). cheers. -- Nathan