Raul Miller <moth@magenta.com> wrote:
> > I can think of a potential solution for this issue:
> >
> > Create something new which is like symlinks, but which has its own
> > permissions. Since these permissions would allow things that would
> > otherwise be impossible (otherwise, what's the point?), a few restrictions
> > would be necessary. For example:
Horst von Brand <vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl> wrote:
> That is a kludge to solve a problem that a kludge introduces.
Er.. no. It's something which I think would be generally useful for
linux even if there never exists a synthetic device filesystem.
The problem it solves is closely related to the problem that ACLs solve:
it allows more than two disjoint groups distinctly different access
permissions to the same files/directories.
It also would just happen to solve the permissions problem introduced
by synthetic filesystems generated by the kernel. Then again there are
other plausible solutions to this problem (such as something like to a
union FS used to provide permissions).
Anyways: please try and recognize this as an idea in its own right.
Perhaps it's the wrong idea, but I'd kind of like to see it dismissed
[or acknowledged as useful] on merits.
-- Raul- 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/