Comments/problems for NTFS with proposed EA/ACL API:

I think the API is good for extended attributes, no doubt. If we ever get round to implementing EAs in NTFS then I would be happy to use the API. It fully satisfies the needs of the NTFS EAs. The only addition I would put into the API is that the names of the extended attributes have to be able to have different name spaces themselves. For example I am fairly sure that the name of an EA in NTFS cannot contain just any character and it certainly cannot have a name of any length... This is something that needs to be considered. At least there must be a defined error return values of "EILSEQ" (bad name namespace) and "ENAMETOOLONG" (self evident).

But for ACLs I am not so positive:

I guess the real problem is that NTFS security doesn't map very well onto Unix/Linux type of security model because the NTFS model has way more features.

If you are asking the question whether NTFS can work with the proposed API then yes, it can support all its features, but not the other way round...

Particular problems:

• The proposed API puts ACLs inside extended attributes (EAs). On NTFS ACLs have nothing to do with extended attributes. They are two entirely different things. I suppose they could be merged into one API and the NTFS driver would have to parse and decide whether it is supposed to be operating on ACLs or EAs. But that will be a pain, especially as there may be ways of abusing the system, depending on how exactly it is implemented.

• The ACLs in NTFS are _way_ more complex than the suggested ones. So mapping from one to the other is possible only when creating new files. When reading/writing existing ACLs a lot of information would be lost.

  Further each inode has a "user" owner and a group "owner" plus two types of ACLs: system one (SACL) and discretionary "normal" one (DACL).

  These four thigns are stored within a self relative security descriptor. And some of them are optional or can be inherited from parent inode or can be defaulted. - This actually breaks the current API which says that files cannot inherit/default file ACLs. In NTFS they can.

  The actual permissions in NTFS are not just RWX but they are a lot more granular (a 32 bitfield, see below URL for a list of all defined values) and some of them even determine the access rights to extended attributes, which needless to say causes a problem if ACLs are treated as EAs...

• NTFS doesn't store uids but Security Identifiers (SID ones not Security_ID ones, both are separate things on NTFS. Are you confused yet? I am...) so mapping would need to exist between NTFS SID and Linux UIDs. Samba needs to do this (and does it already AFAIK), too, but that is more a problem of NTFS and not a Linux ACL API.

All NTFS security stuff can be seen at the following URL - just search for IDENTIFIER_AUTHORITY and read from there on... all security related structures are defined there and there are quite a few comments.

http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/linux-ntfs/ntfs-driver-tng/linux/
include/linux/ntfs_layout.h?rev=1.11&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup

You can also read the NTFS documentation on SF but note that this is not as complete as the header file above but it might be easier to understand. The url with the description of the security descriptor is:

http://linux-ntfs.sourceforge.net/ntfs/attributes/security_descriptor.html

Andreas and I have been looking at several different VFS mechanisms for extended attributes, I've included the code for one below, and we're keen to get a bit of feedback here as well.

We started off with the simplest mechanism, just passing everything straight down into the filesystem. I then played around with some ways of separating out the different operations and then passing off to the filesystem that way (see patch) to give the interface a more rigid definition. Andreas' original mechanism was alot like this, except used NULLs in some field values instead of explicit flags to distinguish similar operations - that's another approach.

Yet another way would be to have an ea_operations vector separate to the inode_operations with an ea_operations pointer in struct inode, enumerating each EA operation and doing away with the flags (in the patch below) altogether.

Had enough of life? Nothing to do? Write a filesystem!

What is FUSE?

FUSE (Filesystem in USErspace) provides a simple interface for userspace programs to export a virtual filesystem to the Linux kernel. FUSE also aims to provide a secure method for non privileged users to create and mount their own filesystem implementations.

There's NFS or CODA. Why FUSE?

Yes both NFS and CODA make it possible to create userspace filesystems. But none of them were designed for this task. The design of FUSE differs from the above in the following:

• Ability to provide a _very_ simple userspace library interface.
• Thin layer in kernel. Minimal caching, predictable behavior.
• Communication is not over a network, and is optimized for local data transfer
• Secure environment even if userspace client is non-cooperative.

All this is nice, but does it work?

I've tested fuse with a simple 'loopback' test program, and also with AVFS (http://www.inf.bme.hu/~mszeredi/avfs/), for which FUSE was designed for. That doesn't mean that there are no bugs in it, but it's a good sign...

Is it available?

Yes it can be downloaded from

http://sourceforge.net/projects/avf

How can it be installed?

FUSE currently works only on 2.4.X kernels. Installation requires the kernel source to be present. The kernel does not need to be patched or recompiled: the kernel part of FUSE is installed as a module. The FUSE module is SMP safe.

There is also a kernel patch (for kernels 2.4.12 and up) included in the distribution, which makes mounting by non-privileged users secure.

Comments on design, implementation, and on my state of mind are welcome.

I made some performance tests with FUSE, and the raw throughput is about 60MBytes/s on a Celeron/360 for both reads and writes. And yes, that includes two context switches and a copy_to_user/copy_from_user pair for each page.

I think that at such speed it's not really such a grave problem if caching is not done in kernel, and it simplifies things a _lot_.

When insmod detects a non-GPL module with unresolved symbols it currently says:

Note: modules without a GPL compatible license cannot use GPLONLY_ symbols

I thought that hint was self-explanatory, obviously it was not clear. Never underestimate the ability of lusers to misread a message. insmod 2.4.12 will say

Hint: You are trying to load a module without a GPL compatible license and it has unresolved symbols. The module may be trying to access GPLONLY symbols but the problem is more likely to be a coding or user error. Contact the module supplier for assistance.

Does anyone think that this message can be misunderstood by anybody with the "intelligence" of the normal Windoze user?

Yes I think it can be misunderstood, and, perhaps more importantly, still points the user at GPLONLY when it's more likely to be a straightforward version mismatch. Better might be:

Hint: You are trying to load a module which has unresolved symbols. These symbols may not be exported by this version of the kernel (perhaps you have a version mismatch), or they may be exported GPLONLY, (in which case they will not be available to your module which does not carry a GPL compatible license). In either case, contact the module supplier for assistance.

this isn't quite true. use either the RH kernel, the -ac series, or the attached patch (for 2.4.15-pre4). Then set /proc/sys/vm/max-readahead to 511 or 1023 (power of 2 minus 1)

this should allow you to generate large enough io's for streaming reads to do what you are looking for.

The mconfig release 0.20 is now available.

Mconfig is a tool to configure the linux kernel, similar to make {menu,x,}config, but written in C and with a proper yacc parser.

The following changes have been made since the last public release, 0.18 by Michael Elizabeth Chastain:

• switched to autoconf/automake.
• build 'menu' mode only if curses are available.
• added manpage (VERY simple).
• added specfile for RPM builds.
• help text moved from C source to external file.
• modes 'text' and 'old' implemented.
• verb 'dep_mbool' implemented.
• relaxed error checking - moan in

This release is available as gzip/bzip compressed source tarball at:

ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/hch/mconfig/

ftp:/ftp.opengfs.org/pub/opengfs/0.0.91/opengfs-0.0.91.tar.gz

ftp:/ftp.opengfs.org/pub/opengfs/0.0.91/opengfs-0.0.91-1.src.rpm

Christoph, could you explain why this is being added now and how it compares to CML1 and/or CML2?

kbuild 2.[45] is completely agnostic about how .config and autoconf.h are built, the only requirement is that .config be internally consistent before it goes into the main build phase. I don't care how .config is built, but I do want to understand why another version of CML is being developed.

I've posted another patch. Te previous patch for some reason had some fixes to NTFS included as well. Corrected. This patch is located at ftp.timpanogas.org:/nwfs/nwfs-2.4.15-pre5-4.gz and incorporates the NetWare File System (NWFS) into Linux kernel 2.4.15-pre5.

This patch is submitted to Linus for consideration of inclusion into the Linux kernel.

Mr. Jeff V. Merkey,

As you can see above, there are great concerns over the nature and status of the source code you have submitted for inclusion to the main linux kernel source tree. Given that I have intimate and detailed personal knowledge of your company, the nature an evolution of the source code in question, the following requirement is issued to you and your general council Mr. Andrew McCullough.

The follow issues must be settled in a legal brief to be reviewed by myself, any appointed general council, and key members of the core linux kernel development team and/or their employer. This may include other organizations where this content may be redistributed.

The first date and time the intial code base for the introduction of NetWare File System (classification to mimic) (now referred as NWFS), which is to be a direct replacement for system infrastucture based upon your time as original author of the Novell 4.XX NWFS, during your employment as "Second Fellow" and "Chief Architect".

Based on general knowledge of case Law in the State of Uath, you must legal define the date of first public disclosure of your rewrite of methodology to access/update native storage environments having the commerical product know to all as Novell OS (NOS) install upon the media.

Working from that date forward, you are required to outline all formal actionable steps taken by your former employer Novell that either can be properly described as legal, acceptable attempts to statisfy terms and conditions for the two (2) year period that claims can be made against TRG et al. If this time period has expired and Novell may not take action, then to the best of my knowledge the materials submitted could be acceptable for review. However, should there be any references or capablities to include the Novell Extended Directory Serivces (E-Directory), you will be required to remove such material.

Repeating the previous process above, but to include any environments which can be exercised in any other legal forum not described above.

I have now placed myself in an unstable position; however, until these issues can be addressed and verified, you should not expect the adoption of your work on this matter to be accepted at the current time.

Should you be able to statisfy mine and others concerns in the core development team, hand picked by Linus Torvalds, I would drop my concerns and suggest global review for adoption. You should know that I can only make suggestions, and raise issues of concern. The final decision is solely the responsiblity of Linus Torvalds.

Dear Mr. Hedrick,

I will comply with the directives of the Linux Community Representatives and direct Mr. McCullough to prepare the requested documentation.

As you are aware, NWFS is a total rewrite of Novell's Native File System. TRG has versioning systems that have tracked the creation of this code since it was begun, and no Novell Source code was used, nor was any confidential information or trade secrets of Novell as defined by UTSA (Uniform Trade Secrets Act).

These materials will be completed and submitted to you NLT Wednesday this week. They will not be posted to LKML, since they are attorney work product. We are greatly honored to be afforded the opportunity to submit our technology to the Linux Community, and for being given this chance to contribute to Linus Torvalds extraordinary efforts and the efforts of the other members of the Linux Community who have made a great success.

I will submit this documentation by Wednesday. Andrew will be available at your discretion for a telephonic conversation to address any specific concerns. His direct line is 801-222-9635.

That's cool to know. I am developing a new NTFS driver - NTFS TNG. It is read-only for now and it is almost complete with regards to basic read support. I.e. it works NOW. - The only thing that is missing is attribute list attribute support but I am working on it as we speak. (-;

If you or anyone else of course is interested in participating in development, have a look. Code is in module ntfs-driver-tng in Sourceforge linux-ntfs CVS. URL with cvs access details:

http://sourceforge.net/cvs/?group_id=13956

Note that the module requires some small changes to the core kernel and the appropriate patch is maintained in ntfs-driver-tng/patches directory. Currently kernel 2.4.15-pre4 is supported but patch might apply to later -pres as well.

After applying the patch and installing the new NTFS module sources NTFS TNG is completely separate from the kernel tree (all code including headers is in fs/ntfs and nowhere else and the include/linux/fs.h dependencies are gone).

One word of warning: NTFS TNG requires gcc-2.96 or later to compile. It will NOT compile with earlier versions of gcc! You will just get a million or so errors if you try any earlier gcc compiler...