Re: [PROPOSAL] Extended attributes for Posix security extensions

[Daniel Phillips]

"Stephen C. Tweedie" wrote:
> Read my original proposal.  It allowed you to use uids, but if you
> happened to be passing utf/8, it gave you the ability to say so.

But it would be a win if the strings could go away, getting it down to
just one kind of object, right?

> On Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 09:13:23PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > Except for the "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" issue, which I believe is better dealt
> > with in userspace whenever possible
> 
> It can't be dealt with in user space when you are setting ACLs on a
> remote filesystem to grant or deny access to a third party in a
> different realm.

This is where I get confused, not knowing a whole lot about NFS and
relatives.  So the problem with uid/gid instead of strings is just that
they aren't meaningful to remote systems?  I don't see how that becomes
a userspace vs kernelspace issue.

--
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]