On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 01:19, Hans Reiser wrote: > Chris Mason wrote: > > >On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 12:22, Nikita Danilov wrote: > > > > > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >> > On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 19:59:22 +0400, Nikita Danilov said: > >> > > >> > > chmod u+rx backup/fsplit.c > >> > > > >> > > "x" bit is necessary for lookups, and "r" bit---for readdir. > >> > > >> > This is going to be *such* a non-starter - there's many decades of > >> > "C files are mode 644 and executables are 755" tradition that this > >> > will fly against. What this basically implies is that the 'execute' > >> > >>Eh? What I described is precisely decades old meaning of rwx bits for > >>directories. > >> > >>Problem is that we have to fit objects that are both regular files and > >>directories into access control scheme that wasn't designed for such a > >>mix. I don't see better solution short of inventing new bit(s). > >> > >> > > > >Please forgive me for jumping into the end of a thread without reading > >the whole thing, but it seems like the r bit should be sufficient here. > >If you can read the file, you should be able to read the metas. > > > >x should be for execution of the file... > > > what if the file/directory contains "real" files which are not metas, > and it also has a file body? This is possible in reiser4.
Well, that would explain needing the execute bit ;-) I guess this is a matter of taste, but to me, the metas are really part of the file. If you can read the file you should be able to at least read the listing of metas, for the same reasons that you can read the file size and atime/mtime etc. This could hold true for /somedir/metas as well. -chris
