Igmar Palsenberg wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2000, Linda Walsh wrote:
>
> > I could see a reason to deny IMMUTABLE to a user -- root might want to
> > freeze a user file as 'evidence' of something, but that is a stretch.
>
> Immutable means NOBODY can do anything bad with it, not even root. The
> last thing I want is users setting immutable flags on my system.
As root you are free to remove flags with chattr regardless of who set them.
> It's mainly used as some anti-hack thing.
>
> > Other than that, why was setting IMMUTABLE and APPEND-ONLY made to be a
> > privileged operation? I could see end users wanting to protect certain
> > files with those modes.
>
> I don't. Use permissions.
Permissions don't stop root from deleting a file in one step slip-ups.
Permissions don't stop dhcpcd from screwing with your /etc/resolv.conf
(client that doesn't support the option for NOT messing with it) or similar
situations.
Linux doesn't support a wide enough ACL list to rely completely on UGO
permissions.
-d
-- "The difference between 'involvement' and 'commitment' is like an eggs-and-ham breakfast: the chicken was 'involved' - the pig was 'committed'."
- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 26 2000 - 21:00:06 EST