Return-Path: Received: from tundra.namei.org ([65.99.196.166]:60349 "EHLO tundra.namei.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751446Ab0GGXaY (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jul 2010 19:30:24 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 09:30:08 +1000 (EST) From: James Morris To: "J. Bruce Fields" cc: "David P. Quigley" , hch@infradead.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, casey@schaufler-ca.com, sds@tycho.nsa.gov, matthew.dodd@sparta.com, trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] NFSv4: Add label recommended attribute and NFSv4 flags In-Reply-To: <20100707170058.GD28815@fieldses.org> Message-ID: References: <1278513086-23964-1-git-send-email-dpquigl@tycho.nsa.gov> <1278513086-23964-7-git-send-email-dpquigl@tycho.nsa.gov> <20100707170058.GD28815@fieldses.org> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Wed, 7 Jul 2010, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 10:31:22AM -0400, David P. Quigley wrote: > > > +#define NFS4_MAXLABELLEN 4096 > > Idle curiosity--why 4096? (Why couldn't it be 16? And how do we know > people will never want 8192?) I think I raised this a while back, too. The maximum security label size on Linux is: #define XATTR_SIZE_MAX 65536 Why arbitrarily limit this over the network? Someone could have a valid local security label which can't be conveyed via NFS. - James -- James Morris