On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 13:36:03 +0200, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 07 Sep 2010, Aneesh Kumar K. V wrote: > > Any update on this. Are you ok with syscall approach which is limitted to > > CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH ? > > My gut reaction is: "not another bunch of xattr syscalls!". It > doesn't feel right, this interface is too specialized to warrant a > full set of filesystem syscalls. Are you ok with rest of syscalls other than the handle based xattr one ? In that case can we get rest of the patches merged and rework xattr patches later ?. That is xattr support for symlink can follow as a separate patch series ? > > Al Viro is right that there are problems with symlinks. What we > really want here is a sort of symlink that doesn't get followed. One > way to provide that is to create a kernel internal "handle" filesystem > and direct open_by_handle() to that for anything not a directory or a > regular file. > -aneesh -- 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
