Messages in this thread | | | From | Nikita Danilov <> | Date | Wed, 5 Oct 2005 16:17:35 +0400 | Subject | Re: what's next for the linux kernel? |
| |
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton writes:
[...]
> > That's exactly the point: Unix file system model is more flexible than > > alternatives. > > *grin*. sorry - i have to disagree with you (but see below). > > i was called in to help a friend of mine at EDS to do a bastion sftp > server to write some selinux policy files because POSIX filepermissions > could not fulfil the requirements.
First, I was talking about flexibility attained through the separation of notions of file and index. You just claimed elsewhere that this is the direction ntfs took (with the introduction of hard-links).
Then, every security model has its weakness and corner cases. Try to express
rw-r-xrw- (0656)
POSIX bits with canonical NT ACLs (hint: in NT allow-ACEs are accumulated).
[...]
> > POSIX permissions were designed to fit into what... 16 bits, > so they didn't have a lot to play with.
That very good property for a security model: simplicity is a virtue here.
Nikita. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |