Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 12:24:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 12:24:34 -0500 Received: from leibniz.math.psu.edu ([146.186.130.2]:61348 "EHLO math.psu.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 12:24:33 -0500 Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 12:30:57 -0500 (EST) From: Alexander Viro To: Stephen Frost cc: Stephen Wille Padnos , Dax Kelson , Chris Wedgwood , Rik van Riel , Linus Torvalds , Rusty Russell , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: What's left over. In-Reply-To: <20021031171115.GT15886@ns> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1066 Lines: 23 On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Stephen Frost wrote: > So you're not really arguing against ACLs, you're complaining that > userspace is broken when there's shared write access. That's fine, > userspace should be fixed, inclusion of ACLs into the kernel shouldn't > be denied because of this. ACLs should be optional, of course, and if > you want them some really noisy warnings about the problems of shared > writeable area with current userspace tools. Of course, that same > warning should probably be included in 'groupadd'. No. I'm saying that ACLs do not have a point until at least basic userland gets ready for setups people want ACLs for. Adding features that can't be used until $BIG_WORK is done is idiocy in the best case and danger in the worst. Especially since $BIG_WORK does not depend on these features. - 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/