Granted, but it seemed that the "what about NTFS" thread was getting
out of control. Why would you ever read a NTFS disk on a Linux system
unless you're dual booting, and why would you care about ACLs in that
case? (Security 101: you can't guarantee anything if you don't have
physical control of the system. It would be nice if we honored NTFS
ACLs, but we shouldn't be trusting NT applications to honor *ours*.)
Once you get that out of the way it seems that everything falls into
one of three cases: it's either a local Linux-like disk or it's a
remote/distributed disk. Remote/distributed file systems will either
have ownership and permissions which can be clearly mapped to ours, or
they won't. It's only the last case where we will have problems, and
we would have problems in any case. (E.g., do we force all file systems
to carry an extra 2k of code to support an obscure FS's semantics?)
Bear Giles
bgiles@coyotesong.com
(P.S., I know that you could put NTFS on removable media, so the
"dual boot" argument isn't watertight. But the "physical control
of the media" problem remains - nobody using ACLs should depend on
those ACLs being honored once the media leaves their control.)
-
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/