Re: [Bug 15875] Add an option to disable file/directory permissions for ACL'ed file systems
From: Chris Lee <hidden>
Date: 2011-08-18 15:15:12
On 04/11/10 15:48, bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15875 Theodore Tso[off-list ref] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tytso@mit.edu--- Comment #11 from Theodore Tso<tytso@mit.edu> 2010-11-04 15:48:22 ---So this bug report is highly confused. Reading the original request, I think what the original poster was requesting was actually a way of disabling all access controls, and ACL's (meaning Access Control Lists) has nothing to do with this at all. Ideally I think this should be a VFS-level mount option (like read-only, noatime) so that it's not an ext4 specific option. But if we can't get consensus across other file system developer teams, doing it as an ext4 specific mount option is a possibility.
I know this is an old post I am dragging up but I have not seen any further discussion and I would like to see the a solution for the following use case: I grab the SD card out of a friends camera which stores images on an extX file system and shove it into my PC. My PC makes all the files owned by me so that I can access them, just like today with FAT based sd cards. If this is done at the VFS level then how is my PC going to know that the file system on the SD card has permissions that should be ignored? Or should things like cameras all just write files with owner id 0 and permissions set to 777? My issue with this is when I change the permissions by using some broken software and then put it back in the camera will it be able to store the images in a permission modified directory? or will the owner of the camera have problems later on when they try to get the content off the card? It would be nice if the file system had a "data in this file system is for anyone who can get their hands on it" mode that was well defined so that device manufacturers would feel safer using it for mass end user use. Regards, Chris.