Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 5 Feb 1999 12:47:05 +0100 (CET) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |