ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric W. Biederman) writes: >> >> No. Just like with this patch, that mapping really needs to go into the >> appropriate xattr handler. Again, where's that code, please? > > I will start looking at what is in Linus's tree. But unless it happens > to address my concerns, I am not even going to consider the notion that > things should be in an ``xattr handler''. > > There are very good reasons why that conversion does not, nor should not > happen inside of filesystem specific code. Ok. I have looked. The cleanups in Linus' tree seem worthwhile. The notion that mapping needs to go into a non-generic xattr handler is broken. If everything can always use a single set of acl handlers for posix acls then I will be happy to consider something like your patch. Fundamentally for vfs and security module supported attributes what a user writes in setxattr needs to be disconnected from what actually gets written to disk. Things evolve and userspace breaks if we don't handle the compatibility between old and new in the kernel. Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
