similar to: Filter when using --xattrs?

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 20000 matches similar to: "Filter when using --xattrs?"

2014 Nov 07
4
[Bug 10925] New: non-atomic xattr replacement in btrfs => rsync --read-batch random errors
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10925 Bug ID: 10925 Summary: non-atomic xattr replacement in btrfs => rsync --read-batch random errors Product: rsync Version: 3.1.0 Hardware: All URL: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs /40013 OS: All
2007 Nov 15
1
program I used to test xattrs
Hello, This is the little basic program I used to test xattrs. First thing I did was something like this cd /mnt/btrfs-test for i in $(seq 0 100000); do touch file_$i; done and then run time ./xattr-test /mnt/btrfs 0 time ./xattr-test /mnt/btrfs 1 time ./xattr-test /mnt/btrfs 2 the 0 test creates 100 xattrs for every file in the directory. the 1 test just does a listxattr for every file in
2007 Apr 07
2
xattrs questions
I see that rsync will eventually support extended attributes, which will be great. But: will it allow backup from a file system that supports xattrs, to one that does not? For this to work, rsync would have to represent the xattrs on the destination machine in some special format, I suppose, which is outside the usual rsync mode of operation. Moreover, even if both machines support
2023 Mar 24
1
[PATCH v8 4/6] security: Allow all LSMs to provide xattrs for inode_init_security hook
On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 9:26?AM Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu at huaweicloud.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 2023-03-24 at 11:18 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote: > > On Thu, 2023-03-23 at 20:09 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 4:19?AM Roberto Sassu > > > <roberto.sassu at huaweicloud.com> wrote: > > > > From: Roberto Sassu
2023 Mar 27
1
[PATCH v8 4/6] security: Allow all LSMs to provide xattrs for inode_init_security hook
On Fri, 2023-03-24 at 17:39 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 9:26?AM Roberto Sassu > <roberto.sassu at huaweicloud.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 2023-03-24 at 11:18 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote: > > > On Thu, 2023-03-23 at 20:09 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 4:19?AM Roberto Sassu > > > > <roberto.sassu at
2009 May 03
2
[PATCH] ocfs2: Don't print error when listing too many xattrs.
Currently, when listing xattrs, kernel define XATTR_LIST_MAX as 65536 in include/linux/limits.h, so it can't handle too many xattrs. But with ocfs2 xattr tree, we actually have no limit for the number. And it will pollute the message with something like this when listing. (27738,0):ocfs2_iterate_xattr_buckets:3158 ERROR: status = -34 (27738,0):ocfs2_xattr_tree_list_index_block:3264 ERROR:
2023 Mar 14
7
[PATCH v8 0/6] evm: Do HMAC of multiple per LSM xattrs for new inodes
From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu at huawei.com> One of the major goals of LSM stacking is to run multiple LSMs side by side without interfering with each other. The ultimate decision will depend on individual LSM decision. Several changes need to be made to the LSM infrastructure to be able to support that. This patch set tackles one of them: gives to each LSM the ability to specify one
2023 Mar 24
1
[PATCH v8 4/6] security: Allow all LSMs to provide xattrs for inode_init_security hook
On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 6:18?AM Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu at huaweicloud.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2023-03-23 at 20:09 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 4:19?AM Roberto Sassu > > <roberto.sassu at huaweicloud.com> wrote: > > > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu at huawei.com> > > > > > > Currently,
2006 Jun 10
1
Two(?) bugs in the xattrs patch
I recently found a bug in the xattrs patch, where it would apply the wrong xattrs to some files in a transfer. While looking at the code, I think I found another one (it sure looks wrong, but I haven't figured out how to demonstrate it yet). Anyway, here's the patch: The first hunk fixes the apparent bug. The second hunk fixes the demonstratable bug. I haven't (yet) looked to see
2008 Dec 09
21
Selective Compression/Encryption
Currently compression and I assume if encryption is implemented it is turned on or off during mount. There are however many times when a user may want to select which files/directories they want to compress or encrypt. This will also be helpful when implementing btrfs support in grub for example. We can say the disk can be compressed/encrypted except for /boot so compression/encryption
2008 Mar 14
11
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 5324] New: with option --xattrs the process rsync is more long time
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5324 Summary: with option --xattrs the process rsync is more long time Product: rsync Version: 3.0.0 Platform: x86 OS/Version: Other Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: core AssignedTo: wayned@samba.org ReportedBy: fauthier@free.fr
2016 Dec 01
3
[PATCH v2 1/2] xattrs: Skip security.evm extended attribute
The security.evm extended attribute is fully owned by the Linux kernel and cannot be directly written from userspace. Therefore, we can always skip it. --- xattrs.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/xattrs.c b/xattrs.c index b105392..3b72e61 100644 --- a/xattrs.c +++ b/xattrs.c @@ -255,6 +255,9 @@ static int rsync_xal_get(const char *fname,
2017 Jan 09
2
[PATCH v2 1/2] xattrs: Skip security.evm extended attribute
On 01/06/2017 12:27 AM, L. A. Walsh wrote: > Stefan Berger wrote: >> The security.evm extended attribute is fully owned by the Linux kernel >> and cannot be directly written from userspace. Therefore, we can always >> skip it. > --- (see below "...")... > > Please put this on a switch or option. > > The security.evm field seems only special on
2022 Dec 01
8
[PATCH v7 0/6] evm: Do HMAC of multiple per LSM xattrs for new inodes
From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu at huawei.com> One of the major goals of LSM stacking is to run multiple LSMs side by side without interfering with each other. The ultimate decision will depend on individual LSM decision. Several changes need to be made to the LSM infrastructure to be able to support that. This patch set tackles one of them: gives to each LSM the ability to specify one
2012 Nov 23
14
extended attributes wiredness
Hi, I am using kernel 3.7-rc6. I have written a test application for extended attributes and have for some folders a wired behaviour: #include <stdio.h> #include <string.h> #include <attr/xattr.h> char attrs[1024]; ssize_t attrslen; int i; char value[1024]; ssize_t valuelen; int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { if (argc != 2) { fprintf(stderr, "Syntax: testxattr
2008 Apr 01
12
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 5365] New: --backup and --xattrs are not compatible
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5365 Summary: --backup and --xattrs are not compatible Product: rsync Version: 3.0.0 Platform: x86 OS/Version: Other Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: core AssignedTo: wayned@samba.org ReportedBy: fauthier@free.fr
2007 Mar 31
2
xattrs problems on Mac OSX with resource forks
I am using the latest 3.0.0cvs protocol version 30 Capabilities: 64- bit files, 32-bit system inums, 64-bit internal inums, socketpairs, hardlinks, symlinks, IPv6, batchfiles, inplace, append, no ACLs, xattrs xattrs cvs 1.77 I installed xattr for Mac OSX Senario: $ mkdir /Users/alan/Desktop/folder1 $ echo 'Hello' > /Users/alan/Desktop/folder1/file1 $ xattr --set color blue
2023 Jan 30
1
[PATCH 00/12] acl: remove remaining posix acl handlers
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 10:10:52AM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote: > However, a few filesystems still rely on the ->list() method of the > generix POSIX ACL xattr handlers in their ->listxattr() inode operation. > This is a very limited set of filesystems. For most of them there is no > dependence on the generic POSIX ACL xattr handler in any way. > > In addition, during
2008 Mar 02
2
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 5298] New: xattrs and acls do not work well together along with fake-super, even worse on XFS
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5298 Summary: xattrs and acls do not work well together along with fake-super, even worse on XFS Product: rsync Version: 3.0.0 Platform: x86 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: core AssignedTo:
2009 Nov 10
12
[RFC] big fat transaction ioctl
Hi all, This is an alternative approach to atomic user transactions for btrfs. The old start/end ioctls suffer from some basic limitations, namely - We can''t properly reserve space ahead of time to avoid ENOSPC part way through the transaction, and - The process may die (seg fault, SIGKILL) part way through the transaction. Currently when that happens the partial transaction will