lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
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: http://humbolt.geo.uu.nl/Linux-MM/ |
| Nederlandse Linux documentatie: http://www.nl.linux.org/ |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:50    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans