[lkml]   [1999]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: linux capabilities and ACLs
    On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Tim Smith wrote:

    > I think the TOPS-10 system was conceptually much better, although
    > the implementation suffered from problems (mainly because it was a
    > gross hack).


    > I think this kind of system should be considered for Linux. I can
    > see some problems with hard links, but it might be a nice way to
    This is a problem because anyone can make a hard link to a
    file (or have I overlooked something?).

    > provide most of the benefits of ACLs with almost none of the
    > disadvantages of the usual approach. If a Linux implementation
    > kept the TOPS-10 behaviour of only checking the access file on
    > accesses that would otherwise fail,

    This _is_ a problem. I can imagine the situation where
    you want a file to be world-readable EXCEPT for that one
    special network user (say, nobody).

    Doing something like that can be excellent protection
    for when a network daemon breaks down...

    Rik -- If a Microsoft product fails, who do you sue?
    | Linux Memory Management site: |
    | Nederlandse Linux documentatie: |

    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 13:50    [W:0.023 / U:27.896 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site