[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111020174915.GA9987@fieldses.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:49:15 -0400
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, agruen@...nel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
dhowells@...hat.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ebiederm@...ssion.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -V7 21/26] richacl: xattr mapping functions
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 04:32:04PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 05:19:46 -0400, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 05:14:34AM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > > > Does it really make sense to use a string here just to pick between the
> > > > > three choices OWNER@, GROUP@, and EVERYONE@? Why not just another small
> > > > > integer? Is the goal to expand this somehow eventually?
> > > >
> >
> > > > I guess Andreas wanted the disk layout to be able to store user@...ain
> > > > format if needed.
> > >
> > > Is that likely? For that to be useful, tasks would need to be able to
> > > run as user@...ain strings. And we'd probably want owners and groups to
> > > also be user@...ain strings.
> > >
> > > The container people seem to eventually want to add some kind of
> > > namespace identifier everywhere:
> > >
> > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=131836778427871&w=2
> > >
> > > in which case I guess we'd likely end up with (uid, user namespace id)
> > > instead of user@...ain?
> >
> >
> > Storing strings is an extremly stupid idea. The only thing that would
> > make sense would be storing a windows-style 128-bit GUID.
> >
>
> How about updating the richacl_xattr as below
>
> struct richace_xattr {
> __le16 e_type;
> __le16 e_flags;
> __le32 e_mask;
> __le32 e_size;
> u8 e_id[0];
> };
>
> now e_flags can contain ACE4_SPECIAL_WHO to indicate value in e_id
> indicate special who values (which could be 1 byte value indicating
> OWNER@, GROUP@ or EVERYONE@), ACE4_UNIXID_WHO, to indicate value
> in e_id is the little endian value of unix id. ACE_WINSID_WHO to
> indicate e_id is the 128 bit array containing SID value. ?
That's effectively still a string.
Would it be so bad to have to introduce another xattr type if we needed
a new id type? You'll have to modify the filesystem and the userspace
tools and everything anyway, won't you?
But if we decide we don't need strings, then at a minimum let's make
these some fixed small size.
You could do something like:
struct richace_xattr {
__le16 e_type;
__le16 e_flags;
__le32 e_mask;
__le32 e_id[4];
}
and just use e_id[0] for now. That would still leave room for a 128-bit
id, or for a 32-bit uid + some-size namespace-id.
Cc'ing Eric Biederman in hopes of finding out whether that would satifsy
whatever wacky future ideas might be expected for user namespaces.
--b.
--
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