On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 02:00:02PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:20:21 -0400, "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 09:02:56PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> > > +#define RICHACL_XATTR "system.richacl"
> > > +
> > > +struct richace_xattr {
> > > + __le16 e_type;
> > > + __le16 e_flags;
> > > + __le32 e_mask;
> > > + __le32 e_id;
> > > + char e_who[0];
> > > +};
> >
> > Does it really make sense to use a string here just to pick between the
> > three choices OWNER@, GROUP@, and EVERYONE@? Why not just another small
> > integer? Is the goal to expand this somehow eventually?
>
> I guess Andreas wanted the disk layout to be able to store user@domain
> format if needed.
Is that likely? For that to be useful, tasks would need to be able to
run as user@domain strings. And we'd probably want owners and groups to
also be user@domain strings.
The container people seem to eventually want to add some kind of
namespace identifier everywhere:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=131836778427871&w=2
in which case I guess we'd likely end up with (uid, user namespace id)
instead of user@domain?
I suppose the variable-length string field could store that too.
I don't hate the idea, it would make life easier for the NFS server.
--b.
> That should make the layout flexible enough so that
> we won't have to add another xattr later.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
