On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:28:30 +0200 (EET) Pekka J Enberg wrote: > Yes, I agree that the current code is broken. I was talking about what the > semantics should be and that your patch doesn't quite get us there. Do you > disagree with that? The UDF specification I am looking at [1] says that -1 > is used by operating systems that do not support uid/gid to denote an > invalid id (although ECMA-167 doesn't seem to have such rule), which is > why I think it's an bad idea for Linux to ever write it on disk. Instead, > we should always write the proper id on disk unless it was invalid in the > first place and we did not explicity change it (via chown, for example). Storing uid/gid values on the filesystem is not always good. Imagine that you need to work with the same removable media on different machines, where you have accounts with different uids; in this case uid/gid values stored on one machine have no meaning everywhere else. It would be good to have a mount option for UDF which turns off the uid/gid handling completely and shows all files on the filesystem with uid/gid specified by mount options. See also the recent thread "Filesystem for mobile hard drive": http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/2/12/64 > 1. http://www.osta.org/specs/pdf/udf260.pdf
Attachment:
pgpVq2teW9RBv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- References:
- [RFC][PATCH] UDF filesystem uid fix
- From: Peter Osterlund <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH] UDF filesystem uid fix
- From: Pekka Enberg <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH] UDF filesystem uid fix
- From: Phillip Susi <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC][PATCH] UDF filesystem uid fix
- From: Pekka J Enberg <[email protected]>
- [RFC][PATCH] UDF filesystem uid fix
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 00/12] hrtimer patches
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 10/12] hrtimer: remove useless const
- Previous by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH] UDF filesystem uid fix
- Next by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH] UDF filesystem uid fix
- Index(es):
 |