Re: [PROPOSAL] Extended attributes for Posix security extensions

[Andreas Gruenbacher]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> [...] But the ACL implementation is not generic enough, IMHO.

The ACL implementation is Posix 1003.1e draft standard 17 compliant. AFAIK
neither of the other ACL implementations (Solaris, Irix, FreBSD) can claim
that.

When researching other ACL systems I decided finding a meaningfull
superset for all of them is futile. It really becomes completely f***ed up
when inheritance in the hierarchy comes into play.

Linux is a POSIX like operating system, so foremost, it should have POSIX
like ACLs (as others like Irix and Solaris already do). Other sorts of
ACLs may be nice, but POSIX ACLs are essential.

Other than that, I would really like to hear your critique about the ACL
design/implementation. I'm perfectly aware that it's not a perfect
solution, and I know a few spots that could be improved (incurring more
complexity). For now, I'm perfectly satisfied with what I did.

Thanks,
Andreas.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Andreas Gruenbacher, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Contact information: http://www.bestbits.at/~ag/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]