linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 1/5] vfs: Add additional owner identifier

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:51:35 -0500
From:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To:	Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] vfs: Add additional owner identifier

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 04:11:57PM +0300, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 09:34:33PM +0300, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> >> This patch add project inode identifier. Project ID may be used as
> >> auxiliary owner specifier in addition to standard uid/gid.
> >
> > There's really no reason to make this a config option.
> Project id feature is not likely to be widely used (i hope only 
> at the beginning). Personally this is not bad to avoid config option.
> At least we will have many new users for free. But I predict
> many angry voices against enabling this feature by default.

How would those "angry voices" notice this feature?

--b.

> Look, we even have CONFIG_BLOCK option at the time when this option
> is enabled in 99.99% of systems.
> 
> Let's ask Jan an Al:
> Will they accept genetic projectid support without appropriate config option?
> >  And xattrs
> > are a rather bad interfaces to this, so even if a filesystem has to
> > resort to implement the project ID this way, this should be hidden
> > inside the filesystem.
> Only one question "Why not?".
> I've tried to count pro and contra options.
> *PRO*
>  1) xattr interface already available, we don't have to invent a new one
>  2) xattrs are supported by most of backup tools and other fs-related
>     tools.
>  3) xattr interface is rather simple and flexible. Filesystem is free
>     to store it's projectid whenever it likes to, xattr is just an
>     manipulation interface.
> *CONTRA*
>  1) XATTR_CREATE/XATTR_REPLACE is useless for project id since
>     inode is belongs to default project (id == 0)
> 
>  
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html