Subject: Re: Support for ACLs
To: David Brownlee <email@example.com>
From: Lord Isildur <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/08/2001 12:45:11
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, David Brownlee wrote:
> Any such filesystem should be able to share the vast majority of
> FFS code, probably even down to the point of 'everything, just
> with ifdefs'.
my previous mail mentions this and what i consider the requisite
condition of this approach.
> Hmm - why is ACL support any more 'unhealthy' than say quota
> support with options QUOTA?
i don't use quotas either. I put user-writable stuff on separate filesystems
and care a lot less if they fill up all the way.
(i dont mean that i use a separate fs for each user, i meant that stuff
that ordinary users can write to goes into filesystems which are not so
critical to have limits on useage)
> Another option might be a 'metadata' filesystem layer that could
> be mounted over any other filesystem to give ACL, MacOS 'resource
> forks' and anything else required. Keeping things in sync if
> anything ever modifies the lower filesystem without going through
> the metadata layer would be a nightmare though. Ick.
I'm extremely against this. Todd's mention of some other existing ACL
hacks into FFS are more the way to go. As long as there is the
interoperability nf ACL and non-ACL ffs's , which shouldnt be a major
problem, then it can safely become and remain a kernel option with no fear