Oystein Viggen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Quoth Niels M�ller: > > > And then have some mechanism for making exceptions to this rule. An > > example of such a mechanism (which I don't know if it makes sense): If > > the directory is writable by no-user processes, and if it has the > > setuid bit set, then the no-user process can create files, and the > > created files get the same owner as the directory. > > Would this actually make any difference compared do what we have today? > Anybody would still be able to write to the directory by doing an > rmauth, potentially filling up the partition or altering data.
The default behaviour would be that the nouser can't create files. But you could create a directory /tmp/foo, setuid it to user foo, and then nouser processes could create files there, which get the user foo as owner. You could set a limited quota for user foo, to prevent the nouser from filling the disk (assuming we have a quota implementation). But I don't see any big advantage, compared to simply running the process in question with userid foo, so I agree that it seems a little pointless. /Niels
