[lkml]   [1999]   [May]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Capabilities done right [diff against 2.3.1]
In article <>,
Albert D. Cahalan <> wrote:
>Linus Torvalds writes:
>> On Fri, 14 May 1999, Pavel Machek wrote:
>> I suspect that it would be cleaner to have capabilities be a name-space
>> issue rather than an inode issue. For example, the one thing I've always
>> wanted to do with symlinks is to have symlinks that can change the
>> privileges of the lookup - it's complex and maybe not a good idea, but
>> it's a more intriguing concept and works with shellscripts and other
>> systems where you can't add ELF notes..
>You want to allow shellscripts with special powers?!?!?

No, we (or at least I) might want to allow filenames with special powers.
For example:

mkdir -p /var/lib/private
chmod 700 /var/lib/private
mkdir -p /var/lib/public
chmod 755 /var/lib/public
make_some_data > /var/lib/private/file
chmod 600 /var/lib/private/file
ln -s /var/lib/private/file /var/lib/public/file

# Everything up to now is standard stuff.
# Here's the new stuff:

chmod a+s (insert magic here) /var/lib/public/file

From here on, anyone can access '/var/lib/private/file' if (and only if)
they follow the symlink '/var/lib/public/file'.
Zygo Blaxell, Linux Engineer, Corel Corporation. (work) or (play). Opinions above are my own, not Corel's.
Linux ryo-ohki 2.2.1 #3 SMP Jan 31 23:45 EST 1999 i586 up 5 days, 20:37

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:51    [W:0.092 / U:8.180 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site