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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
