On 05.10.2017 16:46, Julian Foad wrote: > Branko Čibej wrote: >> On 05.10.2017 16:19, Paul Hammant wrote: >>> Not that my vote counts for much, but I'd prefer w/o props, obeying >>> read permissions. >> >> "Obeying read permissions" means that the directory hashes would have to >> be computed dynamically for each user. > > Correct, but let's not imply that's a showstopper.
I never said it was. > Calculation of a directory's hash would have to happen for each > directory where the user has mixed access to the immediate children, > and for all parents of such a directory up to the root. And /that/ is the painful part: the fact that you need a depth-first traversal of the tree in order to calculate the hash for the root directory. And the reason why we're not exposing the directory hash, even if the FS stores it. > For any subtree where the user has full access, we can use a stored > value. Assuming we know that said user has full access ... which we might, depending on where the hash calculation would take place, i.e., whether it would have useful access to the authz info. -- Brane
