A .xyz file in my filesystem may mean one thing to application X, and
another thing to application Y - and quite possibly only application X
is able to make sense of the information in my .xyz file, even though
both applications use the .xyz suffix for their files.
We accept this ambiguity in file systems.
(We accept a similar possibility for ambiguity for UDP/TCP ports,
process names, etc. etc. etc.)
Even if I don't have application X installed, I can still backup and
restore my .xyz file. Because the tools use a common interface.
Why do extended attributes have to be different? (And who will maintain
the authorative registry over allocated xattr names?)
In my little mind it makes sense to have security information one
specific and well defined place. Then, depending on the kernel security
model, it can either make sense of the information, or it can not.
If I insert a disk with MLS labelled files in a TE system, I cannot
expect the system to magically enforce the MLS policy - but my tools
will still work. I think that sounds beneficial. In fact, for
disaster recovery, it sounds pretty damn convenient in my ears.
Tell me what I am missing here, please.
-- ................................................................ : jakob@unthought.net : And I see the elder races, : :.........................: putrid forms of man : : Jakob Østergaard : See him rise and claim the earth, : : OZ9ABN : his downfall is at hand. : :.........................:............{Konkhra}...............: - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/