From: Andreas Gruenbacher Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 00/22] Richacls (Core and Ext4) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:58:19 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1447067343-31479-1-git-send-email-agruenba@redhat.com> <20151110112943.GA17038@infradead.org> <20151110170703.GB17530@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org" , Linux NFS Mailing List , Theodore Ts'o , Linux API , Trond Myklebust , LKML , XFS Developers , Christoph Hellwig , Steve French , Andreas Dilger , Alexander Viro , linux-fsdevel , Jeff Layton , linux-ext4 , Anna Schumaker To: "J. Bruce Fields" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20151110170703.GB17530@fieldses.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 6:07 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:43:46AM -0600, Steve French wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 6:39 AM, Andreas Gruenbacher >> wrote: >> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 12:08:41PM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: >> >>> Here is another update to the richacl patch queue. This posting contains >> >>> the patches ready to be merged; the patches later in the queue still need >> >>> some more review. >> >> >> and still abuses xattrs instead of a proper syscall interface. >> >> That's far from being ready to merge. >> > >> > The xattr syscall interface is what's used for very similar kinds of >> > things today; using it for richacls as well sure does not count as >> > abuse. Things could be improved in the xattr interface and in its >> > implementation, but we need more substantial reasons than that for >> > reimplementing the wheel once again. >> >> I don't have strong disagreement with using pseudo-xattrs to >> store/retrieve ACLs (we already do this) but retrieving/setting an ACL >> all at once can be awkward when ACLs are quite large e.g. when it >> encodes to over 1MB > > At least in the NFS case, that's also a limitation of the protocol. I couldn't find a limit in the NFSv4 specification, but the client and server implementations both define arbitrary ACL size limits. In addition, the xattr syscalls allow attributes to be up to 64k long. > If > we really wanted to support massive ACLs then we'd need both syscall and > NFS interfaces to allow incrementally reading and writing ACLs, and I > don't even know what those would look like. > > So this is a fine limitation as far as I'm concerned. The bigger problem would be incrementally setting ACLs. To prevent processes from racing with each other, we would need a locking mechanism. In addition, the memory overhead would be prohibitive and access decisions would become extremely slow; we would have to come up with mechanisms to avoid those problems. Thanks, Andreas _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs