--- Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 19:39 -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 07:04:57PM -0500, Dave Quigley wrote: > > > There are several things here. I've spoken to several people about this > > > and the belief I've gotten from most of them is that a recommended > > > attribute is how this is to be transported. The NFSv4 spec people will > > > probably say that if you want xattr like functionality for NFSv4 use > > > named attributes. For us this is not an option since we require > > > semantics to label on create/open and the only way we can do this is by > > > adding a recommended attribute. The create/open calls in NFSv4 takes a > > > list of attributes to use on create as part of the request. I really > > > don't see a difference between the security blob and the > > > username/groupname that NFSv4 currently uses. Also there is a good > > > chance that we will need to translate labels at some point (read future > > > work). > > > > Then use the existing side-band protocol and ignore the NFSv4 spec > > group. They're <skip colourful language here> anyway. > > As I've told you several times before: we're _NOT_ putting private > ioctl^Hxattrs onto the wire. If the protocol can't be described in an > RFC, then it isn't going in no matter what expletive you choose to > use... With the SGI supplied reference implementation it ought to be a small matter of work to write an RFC. If the information weren't SGI proprietary I could even tell you how long it ought to take a junior engineer in Melbourne to write. The fact that there is currently no RFC does not mean that there cannot be a RFC, only that no one has written (or published) one yet. Casey Schaufler casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
