On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 08:24:26PM +1000, GuruJ wrote: > Sam Vilain wrote: > > - UID24/GID24 (works on all 32bit U/GID FSs) > > the format uses the upper quarter of user and > > group id to store the context information, again > > transparently. you'll end up with 16 million > > user and group ids, which should suffice for the > > majority of applications ... > > > >Quite a few systems create one group per user by default, so that they > >can leave users wandering around with a 002 umask without worrying > >about security. So if the external method doesn't work out, my vote > >would go for this option. > > I prefer the UID24/GID24 option. I can't see any reason why having > 'only' 16 million users and groups could be limiting within a virtual > context situation, and it would mean that we were just making more > efficient use of UID/GID identifiers. Even within different contexts, > they are still just users and groups, right? > > Also, wouldn't there also be a smaller chance of future conflicts if > using UID24/GID24? That 'unused' part of the inode may get used at some > point, but UID/GID values are unlikely to be re-mapped in the future.
to make this clear, this was not an opinion poll *smile* all three formats should be available from now on, it's a config option, so you simply decide which to use ... if you like UID24/GID24 go for it! best, Herbert > -- GuruJ.
