Matthew Mondor wrote:
> Strings are used instead of IDs to distinguish the class of an extended
> attribute, i.e. "system" etc. My question is then: must those be
> limited to ASCII or can they support arbitrary bytes, or UTF-8?
For now it is just a C string. It seems we assume only ASCII will
Matthew Mondor 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
> p
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:29:12 -0400
Matthew Mondor wrote:
> If unicode strings are possible, I think that it'd be possible for a
> string to look like "system" but to actually be something else to an
> auditing administrator, unless all tools clearly showed those non-ASCII
> bytes in an escaped fo
Hello,
There were previously discussions, started by Emmanuel, concerning the
extended attributes, including on the various available APIs and which
to support etc.
At the time I read them I was catching up with a lot of mail and had
written down a small note about a potential security implicatio
