From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:45:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id lB2NiwK3009939 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2007 15:45:00 -0800 Message-ID: <475343FB.3060902@sgi.com> Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 10:47:07 +1100 From: Timothy Shimmin MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: ACL limit References: <20071202223105.GS119954183@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20071202223105.GS119954183@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Jan Engelhardt Cc: David Chinner , xfs@oss.sgi.com David Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 07:07:26PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote: >> Hi, >> >> >> is there any way to raise the number of ACLs that can be stored? The >> current limit of 25 is quite tight, where ext3 allows 124 and jfs 8192. >> Would increasing XFS_ACL_MAX_ENTRIES work (yes, using potentially more >> memory), i.e. not interfering with the on-disk format? > > It would be an on disk format change - older kernels would error out > (-EINVAL) on > 25 ACLs and not check any of them. Hence we'd > probably need a superblock feature bit to indicate that >25 ACEs are > supported in a given ACL. > > But we can work around that (superblock feature bit) and should > be able to extend this out to ~8190 entries. We're doing an ACL > rework ATM, so > 25 entry support should fall out of that.... > > Cheers, > > Dave. Yeah, it's just an array of entries in an EA value. The EA value is limited to 64K so it's a question of how many entries you can fit into that. (64K - 4)/12 = 5461 (So just have to sort out the ondisk change as mentioned above) --Tim