Messages in this thread | | | From | <> | Subject | RE: ACL patchs | Date | Mon, 11 Oct 1999 14:54:18 +0200 |
| |
> There is no easy way for a filesystem to implement ACLs, which > is what you seem to imply. _Not_ at all ! You misunderstood my answer it seems, as what I wanted to say so far was the need to build a new full ACL file system (ext-2 derivative is an option).As a fact, that concept shipped under VMS fitted perfectly that OS because other resources worked the same way...Do you have any project to change IPC's UGO approach ? The support of ACLs under one isolated file system means several things for me : you can turn the stuff the way you want to fit ACL concept and you won't break ext-2 usual stable partitions. IMHO you can bring up new _features_ in Linux kernel (fortunately) even if it's not kernel cohesive but it must come in one separated conceptual block (take a look at my VMS'IPC prepatch to see what I mean).
> Linux should get an ACL system that covers a broad range of > different ACL implementations for those file systems that need > it, and should implement a resonable set of ACL features on > ext2 (or ext3, should it ever happen). POSIX seems good; some > small extensions seem even better. Of course.
Regards, Fabian
- 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/
| |