--- Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 19:51 -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 04:50:06PM -0800, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > > 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... > > > > It's as unstructured as the named attributes already in. Or file data > > for that matter. > > Describing what is supposed to be a security mechanism in a structured > fashion for use in a protocol should hardly be an impossible task (and > AFAICS, Dave & co are making good progress in doing so). If it is, then > that casts serious doubt on the validity of the security model... Now this is were I always get confused. I sounds like you're saying that a name/value pair is insufficiently structured for use in a protocol specification. > There should be no need for ioctls. Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned you just threw a bunny under the train for no apparent reason. What have ioctls got to do with anything? 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
