Re: ACLs in Linux

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 17:27:56 GMT, Todd Beauchemin <Marauder328@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I was searching around the web for implementations of ACLs
> in Linux and found a few different ones. I was wondering
> what peoples thoughts were on this idea and whether it
> was worth implementing (Ill only be doing it for hobbyist
> reasons and educational value -- so I have no specific
> implementation). And if there was any value to learning
> how to implement this which distribution do people use
> or have had success with.

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.

--
-- Skylar Thompson (skylar@os2.dhs.org)
-- http://os2.dhs.org/~skylar/

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
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.

On 09 Jul 2003 09:02:34 GMT, Casper H.S Dik <Casper.Dik@Sun.COM> 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".

Yes there are. XFS supports the standards specified in POSIX 1003.1e.

--
-- Skylar Thompson (skylar@os2.dhs.org)
-- http://os2.dhs.org/~skylar/

Skylar Thompson <skylar@amayatra.os2.dhs.org> writes:

> On 09 Jul 2003 09:02:34 GMT, Casper H.S Dik <Casper.Dik@Sun.COM> 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".
>
> Yes there are. XFS supports the standards specified in POSIX 1003.1e.
>

Well, according to e.g. http://wt.xpilot.org/publications/po.../download.html

Important note: The standards IEEE 1003.1e and IEEE 1003.2c are both drafts
and withdrawn. This means, that both are neither finished nor worked on by
the IEEE any longer.


Bye, Dragan

--
Dragan Cvetkovic,

To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer

"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