Re: Extended attributes Linux interface

[manu%netbsd.org@localhost (Emmanuel Dreyfus)]

Matthew Mondor <mm_lists%pulsar-zone.net@localhost> wrote:

> Yet ideally for performance and security, it'd be ideal if the
> interface only presented integer IDs for the class, and reserved
> integer key attributes for the i.e. EXTATTR_SYSTEM class (just like our
> groups are really gids).  The Linux compatibility interface, if
> preserved, could be oblivious to system class attributes and only be
> useful for the general purpose user attributes...  The problem here
> would be that user tools using only the Linux API would not be able to
> backup the full state (in this case, the extended permissions,
> unfortunately)...

We already map system.foo to system class. 

The problem that is hard to decide is what to do with trusted.bar. It is
mapped to system class for now, but in order to avoid loosing
information, the stored attribute name is trusted.bar (not just bar).
Things would be simplifer is we introduce trusted and security classes
in BSD API.

-- 
Emmanuel Dreyfus
http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz
manu%netbsd.org@localhost