Thumbnail Management Spec needs revision (Was Re: A Standard for Thumbnailers)

[Alexander Larsson]

On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 13:01 -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 09:11 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > > that makes it very easy to use encrypted volumes on e.g. USB drives. The
> > > right thing to do is probably to store the thumbnails per mount as we do
> > > with trash-spec. Something to keep in mind.
> > 
> > Its very easy to say "per volume", but its a lot harder to implement, as
> > is clear for the trash spec and from anyone trying to implement
> > per-volume objects. per volume dirs have sharing and permission issues,
> > not to mention the hell that you have to go through to map from a
> > pathname to the volume its on (considering things like symlinks, bind
> > mounts, etc).
> 
> A harder problem is probably to determine when a file stems from an
> encrypted file system / block device. Am almost certain we need kernel
> support for that. Storing thumbnails per mount was merely a suggestion;
> an easier solution would simply be to not store Thumbnails for files
> originating from encrypted file systems / block device. 
> 
> However, I think the spec does need to mention files originating from
> encrypted file systems / block devices. Do you disagree?

I don't disagree that this is a problem that should be thought about.
I'm just noting that there are many issues here that are not very
obvious from a quick glance.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Alexander Larsson                                            Red Hat, Inc 
                   alexl at redhat.com    alla at lysator.liu.se 
He's a genetically engineered day-dreaming dog-catcher from the 'hood. She's a 
bloodthirsty green-skinned mermaid from a family of eight older brothers. They 
fight crime!