Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 20:23:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 20:23:17 -0500 Received: from rj.SGI.COM ([204.94.215.100]:32964 "EHLO rj.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 10 Dec 2001 20:23:07 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 12:22:58 +1100 From: Timothy Shimmin To: "Stephen C. Tweedie" Cc: Nathan Scott , Andreas Gruenbacher , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revised extended attributes interface Message-ID: <20011211122258.V61575@boing.melbourne.sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20011205143209.C44610@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> <20011207202036.J2274@redhat.com> <20011208155841.A56289@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> <20011210115209.C1919@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0us In-Reply-To: <20011210115209.C1919@redhat.com>; from sct@redhat.com on Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 11:52:09AM +0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 11:52:09AM +0000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 03:58:41PM +1100, Nathan Scott wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 08:20:36PM +0000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > > > > > This is looking OK as far as EAs go. However, there is still no > > > mention of ACLs specifically, except an oblique reference to > > > "system.posix_acl_access". > > > > Yup - there's little mention of ACLs because they are only an > > optional, higher-level consumer of the API, & so didn't seem > > appropriate to document here. > > Unfortunately, if there are many filesystems wanting to use posix > ACLs, then standardising the API is still desirable. True. > > > We have implemented POSIX ACLs above this interface - there > > is source to new versions of Andreas' user tools here: > > http://oss.sgi.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/linux-2.4-xfs/cmd/acl2 > > These have been tested with XFS and seem to work fine, so we > > are ready to transition over from our old implementation to > > this new one. > > But the ACL encoding is still hobbled: there's no namespace for > credentials other than uid/gid. This has been brought up before, but > it's worth going over some of the things we'd like to be able to do > with extended credentials again: > [credential examples deleted] > > Authentication is about *much* more than just local uid/gids, but the > current EA/ACL specs are creating an implicit standard for ACLs > without addressing any of these concerns. > > > The existence of a POSIX ACL implementation using attributes > > system.posix_acl_access and system.posix_acl_default doesn't > > preclude other types of ACLs from being implemented (obviously > > using different attributes) as well of course, if someone had > > an itch to scratch. > > I am not talking about other types of ACLs! I am talking about > *POSIX* ACLs, but using a credentials namespace which is more than > just uid/gid. Only the credentials change: the rest of the POSIX > semantics still apply. The CITI NFSv4 implementation is already doing > POSIX ACLs and GSSAPI krb5 authentication on top of the bestbits API, > so we already have at least one application ready and waiting to use > such an extension. > So you are particularly interested in more general "qualifiers" (in posix acl entry speak:). Some people are also interested in more general "permissions" for ACEs. Could this not be catered for independent of the proposed EA interface for getting/setting/removing EAs ? One could come up with more general data structures and functions for ACLs/ACEs than what we currently propose, and yet still use the same EA interface. --Tim - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/