"Casper H.S. Dik" wrote:
>
> Skylar Thompson <skylar@amayatra.os2.dhs.org> writes:
>
> >I've had good experience with the ACLs in SGI's XFS filesystem. They are
> >fully POSIX-compliant, and journaled too. Ext3 recently got ACL support as
> >well, but I believe it's in the form of a kernel patch. XFS has had ACLs
> >from the beginning, and they are likely to be safer for production
> >use.
>
> There's no such thing as "fully POSIX-compliant ACLs".
>
> Casper

This is correct. It is a violation of the IEEE (POSIX) rules
to claim conformance to a Draft. The POSIX P1003.1e/2c work
was withdrawn when it got to the point that only SGI and IBM
were willing to support the effort. ACL implementation above
very closely resembles Draft 17 of POSIX ACLs, but does not
claim conformance. That would be wrong.

--

Casey Schaufler Manager, Trust Technology, SGI
casey@sgi.com 650.933.1634