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

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

cheers.

-------- Forwarded Message --------
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
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
[email protected].

email message attachment
-------- Forwarded Message --------
From: Nathan Scott <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: Timothy Shimmin <[email protected]>
Cc: Andreas Gruenbacher <[email protected]>, Gerard Neil
<[email protected]>, [email protected], Dave Kleikamp
<[email protected]>
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

_______________________________________________
acl-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://acl.bestbits.at/mailman/listinfo/acl-devel