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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:14:33 -0400 From: Michael Tharp <gxti@...tiallystapled.com> To: Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com> CC: alan <alan@...eserver.org>, Marc Perkel <mperkel@...oo.com>, LKML Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca> Subject: Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems Kyle Moffett wrote: > Basically any newly-created item in such a directory will get the > permissions described by the "default:" entries in the ACL, and > subdirectories will get a copy of said "default:" entries. This would work well, although I would give write permissions to a group so the entire dir wouldn't need to be re-ACLed when a user is added. I may give this a shot; I've been avoiding ACLs because they have always sounded incomplete/not useful, but the inheritance aspect sounds rather nice. > So yes, such functionality is nice; even more so because we already have > it. I think if you were really going to "extend" a UNIX filesystem it > would need to be in 2 directions: > (A) Handling disk failures by keeping multiple copies of important > files. This is ZFS' bailiwick, no? I'd love to see the licensing issues resolved, because if it can control level of redundancy on a per-file/directory basis, I would be a very happy man. > (B) Have version-control support This might be pushing it, but hey, we *are* talking about the future here. > (C) Allowing distributed storage (also lazy synchronization and > offline modification support) I'd really love to see distributed storage not suck. Everything I've seen requires myriad daemons and ugly configuration. > With some appropriate modifications and hooks, GIT actually comes pretty > close here. For larger files it needs to use a "list-of-4MB-chunks" > approach to minimize the computation overhead for committing a > randomly-modified file. The "index" of course would be directly read > and modified by vfs calls and via mapped memory. Merge handling would > need careful integration, preferably with allowing custom > default-merge-handlers per subtree. There would be lots more design > issues to work out, but it's something to think about Now you're just being silly ;) > Cheers, > Kyle Moffett -- m. tharp - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists