On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 14:25:00 -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote: >On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 21:11 +0100, Ingo wrote: >> 1. if uid, gid, umask is not given all remains as it is - the normal Linux >> operating. >> >> 2. if uid, gid, umask is given in FSTAB or during MOUNT we have two cases: >> a) reading the file system: uid, gid, umask define the permission >> overruling all information stored in the inodes, but not changing it >> (also if nothing stored like when data was written by OS/2) > >Yeah, this is the most consistent. > >> b) writing to the file system: 2 possibilities exist >> 1. writing no permission information to the file system/inodes >> I guess this is the easiest to implement and will do. >> 2. writing the permissions defined by uid, gid umask to the >> file sytem >> (this will result in a vast mixture of files, with and >> without attributes, >> so probably b1 is the better choice. > >It gets a little bit interesting if you do chown/chmod on the files. >Under b1, the ownership/permissions would stay in effect as long as the >file is cached in memory, but will revert to the overridden values when >read from disk again. This would be true under b2 as well, so there is >really no point of implementing b2 unless we did something different for >a). > >I concur that a and b1 would be the sanest behavior.
I think so as well. Especially as I meanwhile succeded to format also removable USB-MSD disks with JFS under OS/2. So the disks/partititions will no way be altered by Linux when mounting with the said options - I think this is another philosophy of Linux: "don't modify things which you don't own";-) > >> > >> >Would you be interested in testing a kernel patch? If so, what level of >> >kernel are you running? >> >> I would like to try a kernel patch, but I am not yet very skilled with >> Linux, so some >> guidence would be helpfull. Do I have to rebuild the whole kernel and >> modules, >> or just apply a differential patch - that is definitely no problem >> (i.e. like the SUSE online-update or the Vmware-any-any patch)? > >I'm sure SUSE has a way to build a kernel module without rebuilding the >whole kernel. I'll look into it. In that case I am sure I can do it, years ago I updated jfs.o?? in 2.4 kernel of SUSE 8.0 Thanks, Ingo > >> My system is SUSE 10.0 Professional (Novell), >> Kernel is 2.6.13-15.7 >> jfsutils are 1.1.8-3 > >-- >David Kleikamp >IBM Linux Technology Center > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Jfs-discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jfs-discussion
