[Acl-Devel] [Fwd: Re: No extended attributes for sticky directories? (and samba)]

[Nathan Scott]

Whoops, 'bout time I got re-subscribed... sorry for any duplicates.

cheers.

-------- Forwarded Message --------
From: acl-devel-owner at bestbits.at
To: nscott at aconex.com
Subject: Re: [Acl-Devel] No extended attributes for sticky directories?
(and samba)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 05:51:26 +0100

You are not allowed to post to this mailing list, and your message has
been automatically rejected.  If you think that your messages are
being rejected in error, contact the mailing list owner at
acl-devel-owner at bestbits.at.

email message attachment
-------- Forwarded Message --------
From: Nathan Scott <nscott at aconex.com>
Reply-To: nscott at aconex.com
To: Timothy Shimmin <tes at sgi.com>
Cc: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen at suse.de>, Gerard Neil
<xyzzy at devferret.org>, acl-devel at bestbits.at, Dave Kleikamp
<shaggy at austin.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Acl-Devel] No extended attributes for sticky directories?
(and samba)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 15:49:41 +1100

On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 14:27 +1000, Timothy Shimmin wrote:
> ...
> Hmmm. Nathan wrote this stuff so I'm not certain what he was addressing.
> However, I can't see now why we need any of the attr_capable hooks in xfs_attr.c -
> they all seem to be covered by the vfs - for each of the namespaces;

In 2.4 kernels, the VFS doesn't do any permission checking on
xattr operations, that was something added to the VFS in 2.6.
So, certainly seems like there's potential for cleaning up a
thing or two here, since we're now doubling up on checks here
from the sound of it.

> 
> So, I'd like to rip out all the capable calls (not just the user one)
> but I want to check with Nathan and have a better look first.
> 

cheers.

-- 
Nathan