[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHc6FU6aWsWO1SOSyNVnbObE0GoE4dr5a3WVTgvX4xn0wum1Fg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:58:19 +0100
From: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
Cc: Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>,
Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
XFS Developers <xfs@....sgi.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 00/22] Richacls (Core and Ext4)
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 6:07 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@...ldses.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:43:46AM -0600, Steve French wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 6:39 AM, Andreas Gruenbacher
>> <agruenba@...hat.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 12:08:41PM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
>> >>> Here is another update to the richacl patch queue. This posting contains
>> >>> the patches ready to be merged; the patches later in the queue still need
>> >>> some more review.
>> <snip>
>> >> and still abuses xattrs instead of a proper syscall interface.
>> >> That's far from being ready to merge.
>> >
>> > The xattr syscall interface is what's used for very similar kinds of
>> > things today; using it for richacls as well sure does not count as
>> > abuse. Things could be improved in the xattr interface and in its
>> > implementation, but we need more substantial reasons than that for
>> > reimplementing the wheel once again.
>>
>> I don't have strong disagreement with using pseudo-xattrs to
>> store/retrieve ACLs (we already do this) but retrieving/setting an ACL
>> all at once can be awkward when ACLs are quite large e.g. when it
>> encodes to over 1MB
>
> At least in the NFS case, that's also a limitation of the protocol.
I couldn't find a limit in the NFSv4 specification, but the client and
server implementations both define arbitrary ACL size limits. In
addition, the xattr syscalls allow attributes to be up to 64k long.
> If
> we really wanted to support massive ACLs then we'd need both syscall and
> NFS interfaces to allow incrementally reading and writing ACLs, and I
> don't even know what those would look like.
>
> So this is a fine limitation as far as I'm concerned.
The bigger problem would be incrementally setting ACLs. To prevent
processes from racing with each other, we would need a locking
mechanism. In addition, the memory overhead would be prohibitive and
access decisions would become extremely slow; we would have to come up
with mechanisms to avoid those problems.
Thanks,
Andreas
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists