From: Herbert Poetzl (herbert_at_13thfloor.at)
Date: Tue 24 Dec 2002 - 20:08:11 GMT
On Tue, Dec 24, 2002 at 10:51:19PM +0300, Alex Lyashkov wrote:
> Hello Herbert,
> > > you have plain for create that ?
> >
> > well, I already did, but Jacques had a look on it,
> > and said "that's not the way I would do it ...", but
> > as far as I know it's the only way it has been done
> > till now, and as far as I am concerned, it's the best
> > way to do it ... anyway your mileage may vary.
> >
> i found other way to store context numbering at inodes.
> I add 2 ioctl`s to inode. itself context number stored in reserved
> for linux fields at ext2 inode.
hmm, yes I thought about that too, I almost implemented
this, but I thought the idea to combine 16bit uid/gid
and 16bit context id to 32bit uids would make life a
lot simpler because it has several advantages:
* independant from filesystem (if it has 32bit uid/gid)
* you do not need any modifications (ioctls etc)
* chown, chgrp, ls can be used to change/list context info
* quota will automagically separate users from different contexts
the real advantage, in my opinion, was to make context
zero readable/accessible for any context, and do an
automatic context migration at change/write/etc ...
> > http://www.13thfloor.at/VServer/vserver-0.21-cap_quotactl.diff.bz2
> >
> > I didn't update the patches, because nobody except myself
> > seem to use this patches, so if you think they are useful
> > to you, I am willing to update them to 2.4.20 ctx16 ...
> >
> > remark: static context numbering is essential for the
> > per server/context quota, or you will have some troubles ...
> >
> i't only one right way.
do you mean
- it is the only (right) way or
- there is only one (right) way?
best,
Herbert
> Best regards,
> Lyahkov mailto:shadow_at_itt.net.ru
>