Yes. Yes. Yes. I agree with every one of your points in this message :). On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> Well, I think the bit, if we must have one, belongs in the filesystem > objects that have ACLs, as opposed to processes. There may be no umask > to apply in remote access cases, so using a process attribute is likely > to result in different behavior according to the access protocol and > client. That might not be surprising for the CIFS case, but it certainly > would be for the NFS case. > > But also I think it's the owner of an object that should decide what > happens to the object's ACL on chmod rather than random programs and user > environments. > > We might need multiple bits, but we do have multiple bits to play with in > mode_t. The main issue with adding mode_t bits is going to be: will apps > handle the appearance of new mode_t bits correctly? I suspect that they > will, or at least that we'd condier it a bug if they didn't. Or we could > add a new file attribute. > > But given cheap datasets, why not settle for a suitable dataset property > as a starting point. I.e., maybe we could play with aclmode a little > more. -- Paul B. Henson | (909) 979-6361 | http://www.csupomona.edu/~henson/ Operating Systems and Network Analyst | hen...@csupomona.edu California State Polytechnic University | Pomona CA 91768 _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
