Re: what's next for the linux kernel?

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 04:17:35PM +0400, Nikita Danilov wrote:
> 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. 

 oh, right.

> You just claimed elsewhere that this is
> the direction ntfs took 

 with a leap of a few steps, possibly: certainly directly i don't
 remember doing so.

> (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).
 
 they used not to be.  accumulative inherited ACLs were introduced
 in NT 5.0.

 and is accumulated ACLs such a bad thing?  it's certainly more
 space-efficient and administrative-efficient.

 l.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/