On Oct 6, 2015, at 7:12 AM, Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. Cheers, Andreas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
