Messages in this thread | | | From | (Zygo Blaxell) | Subject | Re: Capabilities done right [diff against 2.3.1] | Date | 16 May 1999 17:33:47 -0400 |
| |
In article <199905160625.CAA14720@jupiter.cs.uml.edu>, Albert D. Cahalan <acahalan@cs.uml.edu> 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. zygob@corel.ca (work) or zblaxell@furryterror.org (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 majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |