Hi, I was going for the point you make later in this thread: "user xattrs are in principle harmless." The exposure policy for non-harmless xattrs issue is real enough, but my point was, it seems to be a Linux policy issue, at the NFSv4 level just as it was at the syscall level. The caching and atomicity issues seem like they actually are issues for NFSv4 discussion. If the named attribute interface actually fails to cover xattrs, that's a big gaffe. Matt ----- "Trond Myklebust" <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Oct 26, 2013, at 10:01 AM, Matt W. Benjamin <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Surely you don't need NFSv4 to standardize the the (empty?) set of > system or magic attributes Linux > > should export? > > The NFSv4 working group has no authority to do so. POSIX would be the > right address. > > > Besides, as you're well aware, most people who ask for xattrs are > looking for an ability to associate > > arbitrary specific data, not a back door ioctl interface. That's > clearly what the NFSv4 named attributes as standardized were intended > for. > > No. I'm not aware of that. > > > I'm well aware of other uses and plans that someone would want to > standardize, but it seems > > irrelevant to the discussion. > > It's very relevant to the discussion as it defines what namespace > applications can expect to work. > > Trond -- Matt Benjamin The Linux Box 206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 http://linuxbox.com tel. 734-761-4689 fax. 734-769-8938 cel. 734-216-5309 -- 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
