Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751276AbVJGBBj (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Oct 2005 21:01:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751271AbVJGBBj (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Oct 2005 21:01:39 -0400 Received: from [64.162.99.240] ([64.162.99.240]:41795 "EHLO spamtest2.viacore.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751266AbVJGBBi (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Oct 2005 21:01:38 -0400 Message-ID: <4345C873.3020800@spamtest.viacore.net> Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 17:59:31 -0700 From: Joe Bob Spamtest User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050923 Fedora/1.7.12-1.5.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: what's next for the linux kernel? References: <20051002204703.GG6290@lkcl.net> <4342DC4D.8090908@perkel.com> <4343F815.4000208@perkel.com> <20051005161527.GU7992@ftp.linux.org.uk> <4343FE1C.7090700@perkel.com> <20051005193024.GG8011@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <20051005224847.GN10538@lkcl.net> In-Reply-To: <20051005224847.GN10538@lkcl.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1408 Lines: 33 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > the bastion sftp example i gave which required selinux on top of a much > broader set of POSIX file permissions demonstrates the fallacy of your > statement. > > try to achieve the same effect with POSIX - even POSIX ACLs > (uploader only has create and write, not read, not delete; > downloader has read and delete, not write, not create) > > and you will fail, miserably, because under POSIX, write implies > create. you, however, seem to be missing the point that these are special circumstances. in 99% of all cases, regular unix file permissions are sufficient. when you start needing special silly permissions for things like this, we have special silly tools to accommodate you. Use them. Deal with it. adding a permissions schema similar to that found in windows/netware would only unneccessarily complicate things, and most likely end up breaking everything. bottom line: if you want to see support like this in linux, write a filesystem with these capabilities built-in. If you don't want to/can't write it, then stop complaining and continue to use netware (read: shit or get off the pot). - 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/