Re: [RFC][PATCH] UDF filesystem uid fix

[Sergey Vlasov]

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:28:30 +0200 (EET) Pekka J Enberg wrote:

> Yes, I agree that the current code is broken. I was talking about what the 
> semantics should be and that your patch doesn't quite get us there. Do you 
> disagree with that? The UDF specification I am looking at [1] says that -1 
> is used by operating systems that do not support uid/gid to denote an 
> invalid id (although ECMA-167 doesn't seem to have such rule), which is  
> why I think it's an bad idea for Linux to ever write it on disk. Instead, 
> we should always write the proper id on disk unless it was invalid in the 
> first place and we did not explicity change it (via chown, for example).

Storing uid/gid values on the filesystem is not always good.  Imagine
that you need to work with the same removable media on different
machines, where you have accounts with different uids; in this case
uid/gid values stored on one machine have no meaning everywhere else.
It would be good to have a mount option for UDF which turns off the
uid/gid handling completely and shows all files on the filesystem with
uid/gid specified by mount options.

See also the recent thread "Filesystem for mobile hard drive":

http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/2/12/64

>   1. http://www.osta.org/specs/pdf/udf260.pdf

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature