xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: default quota limits in linux (via quotactl())

To: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: default quota limits in linux (via quotactl())
From: Jan Hudec <bulb@xxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 13:37:18 +0100
Cc: Jan Hudec <bulb@xxxxxx>, "Stefan (metze) Metzmacher" <metze@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@xxxxxxxxxx>, viro@xxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxxxx, Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ext2-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jfs-discussion@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Alexander Bokovoy <a.bokovoy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20030128112034.GA23731@xxxxxxxx>
Mail-followup-to: Jan Hudec <bulb@xxxxxx>, Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>, "Stefan (metze) Metzmacher" <metze@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@xxxxxxxxxx>, viro@xxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxxxx, Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ext2-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jfs-discussion@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Alexander Bokovoy <a.bokovoy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030127150905.0217e170@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <5.2.0.9.2.20030127150905.0217e170@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <5.2.0.9.2.20030128074810.0218c4f8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030128093250.GM28513@vagabond> <20030128094014.GA23257@xxxxxxxx> <20030128094619.GO28513@vagabond> <20030128101310.GA23320@xxxxxxxx> <20030128105747.GR28513@vagabond> <20030128112034.GA23731@xxxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4i
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 03:20:34AM -0800, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:57:47AM +0100, Jan Hudec wrote:
> 
> > So you can only setquota for the users that actualy log in
> 
> the API allows you to set quota for any valid uid/gid

Yes, it does. But since there is many more valid users than those
actualy using the system, you don't want to... And a logged in user is
sure valid, so no problem there, right?

> > Well, it get's complicated, but you still can setquota in the local
> > delivery process... I know it get's a bit complicated...
> 
> sure, this is a perfectly legitimate argument and a fairly reasonable
> solution to this case

If it finaly got too complicated, you could add a simple code to kernel,
that would run_usermodehelper and provide a user mode program to fix
things up. That might even get a chance of being accepted. (And it would
be more flexible since it can get the default quota from LDAP etc...)

However as long as it's manageable in userspace, do it in userspace...
All services that log in users can use PAM nowadays, so there it is
quite easy and all services that can run on behalf of users have some
hooks where the fixup command can be run too.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <bulb@xxxxxx>


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>