Re: [PATCH v8 00/41] Richacls

[Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1631 bytes --]

On Oct 6, 2015, at 7:12 AM, Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 02:58:36PM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
>>> I think the point is that a new VFS feature that is easy to integrate in
>>> multiple filesystems should have support for those filesystems.  A decade
>>> ago, just having ext* support would probably have been fine, but these days,
>>> XFS, BTRFS, and F2FS are used just as much (if not more) on production
>>> systems as ext4, and having support for them right from the start would
>>> significantly help with adoption of richacls.
>> 
>> That's one reason.  The other is that actually wiring it up for more
>> than a single consumer shows its actually reasonable generic.
> 
> The filesystem interface now is the same as for POSIX ACLs, used by a
> dozen or so filesystems already.
> 
>> I don't want to end up with a situration like Posix ACLs again where
>> different file systems using different on disk formats again.
> 
> Any file system could choose a different on-disk format than the one
> that ext4 currently uses, but I don't see a reason why any should.
> Apart from uid / gid mappings that is the same as the user-space xattr
> format. Network file systems like NFSv4 and CIFS with their predefined
> over-the-wire formats obviously are another story.

And any disk filesystems that have their own non-POSIX ACLs, such as HFS, NTFS, ZFS would presumably also need to map the in-kernel Richacl format to their on-disk format.

Cheers, Andreas






[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]