Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030374AbVJEU1T (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Oct 2005 16:27:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030375AbVJEU1T (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Oct 2005 16:27:19 -0400 Received: from 10.ctyme.com ([69.50.231.10]:47010 "EHLO newton.ctyme.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030374AbVJEU1R (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Oct 2005 16:27:17 -0400 Message-ID: <43443723.907@perkel.com> Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 13:27:15 -0700 From: Marc Perkel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.10) Gecko/20050716 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 7eggert@gmx.de CC: Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: what's next for the linux kernel? References: <4TiWy-4HQ-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <4U0XH-3Gp-39@gated-at.bofh.it> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spamfilter-host: newton.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2583 Lines: 88 Bodo Eggert wrote: >Marc Perkel wrote: > >[...] > > >>I'll run through a few ideas here. >> >> > > > >>Novell Netware type permissions. ACLs are a step in the right direction >>but Linux isn't any where near where Novell was back in 1990. Linux lets >>you - for example - to delete files that you have no read or write >>access rights to. >> >> > >It lets you unlink them. That's different from deleting, since the owner >may have his/her private link to that file. > >Unlinking is changing the contents of a directory, and it's controlled by >the write permission of the containing directory. > > > There would be different rights to eack link. >>Netware on the other hand prevents you from deleting >>files that you can't write to and if you have no right it is as if the >>file isn't there. >> >> > >Imagine a /tmp directory (writable by world) with user "a" creating a file >"foo", umask=077 and user "b" trying to do the same. User "b" will get >'file exists' if he tries to create it, and 'file does not exist' if he >tries to list it. He will go nuts. > > Users should have private temp directory space. Two user trying to create the same file in the same directory isn't going to work under any operating system. >BTW: YANI: That about a tmpfs where all-numerical entries can only be >created by the corresponding UID? This would provide a secure, private >tmp directory to each user without the possibility of races and denial-of- >service attacks. Maybe it should be controlled by a mount flag. > > > >>You can't even see it in the directory. Netware also >>has inherited permissions like Windows and Samba has and this is doing >>it right. >> >> > >You can't do that if you have hardlinks. However, I missed the feature of >overruling file permissions in some special directories, e.g. anything >put under /pub should ignore umask and be a+rX. > > You have to realize the Netware does things differently and that Linux limitations don't apply to Netware. > > >>File systems and individual directories should be able to be >>flagged as casesensitive/insensitive. >> >> > >IMHO not needed. > > But just because you don't need it doesn't mean other people don't. If you are running Samba pretending to be a case insensitive file system then this is a good feature. - 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/