[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAH2r5mtbg7QQVQsi_7RDF855dkqumX1K2thCyBirqn=uCRZa8A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 15:55:01 -0500
From: Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
Cc: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@...il.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>,
Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/41] Richacls
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 2015, at 7:12 AM, Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 02:58:36PM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
>>>> I think the point is that a new VFS feature that is easy to integrate in
>>>> multiple filesystems should have support for those filesystems. A decade
>>>> ago, just having ext* support would probably have been fine, but these days,
>>>> XFS, BTRFS, and F2FS are used just as much (if not more) on production
>>>> systems as ext4, and having support for them right from the start would
>>>> significantly help with adoption of richacls.
>>>
>>> That's one reason. The other is that actually wiring it up for more
>>> than a single consumer shows its actually reasonable generic.
>>
>> The filesystem interface now is the same as for POSIX ACLs, used by a
>> dozen or so filesystems already.
>>
>>> I don't want to end up with a situration like Posix ACLs again where
>>> different file systems using different on disk formats again.
>>
>> Any file system could choose a different on-disk format than the one
>> that ext4 currently uses, but I don't see a reason why any should.
>> Apart from uid / gid mappings that is the same as the user-space xattr
>> format. Network file systems like NFSv4 and CIFS with their predefined
>> over-the-wire formats obviously are another story.
>
> And any disk filesystems that have their own non-POSIX ACLs, such as HFS, NTFS, ZFS would presumably also need to map the in-kernel Richacl format to their on-disk format.
Will be interesting to see whether in the long run can have some
common code in NTFS, CIFS/SMB3 (and even NFSv4.x) ACL parsing since
their formats are quite closely related
--
Thanks,
Steve
--
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