Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 8 Apr 1999 20:44:54 -0500 (CDT) | From | Daniel Taylor <> | Subject | Re: ext3 to include capabilities? |
| |
OK, why not do both.
Do ext3 with ACL's, journalling, and other extensions.
Do an ELF header for capabilities.
You would think that we had to _choose_ one or the other.
Dan
On Thu, 8 Apr 1999, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> > Andreas Siegert writes: > > Quoting Albert D. Cahalan (acahalan@cs.uml.edu): > > >> I'm still waiting for a filesystem-based proposal that works with NFS. > > > > Capabilities are there to increase security. Anyone who seriously > > wants security will not use NFS. > > I keep hearing this without a reason. Assuming you filter incoming > packets and don't allow random insecure machines on your network, > just how is NFS insecure? You'd have to attack it with some kind of > multi-machine hard link race condition I think. (but inode generation > numbers might seal that too) > > > Breaking other tools like tar and friends I see as a serious issue, > > but NFS, never. But when introducing capabilities and ACLs one will > > need new archival programs that take care of them anyway. Anything > > that does not support them directly will probably end up as a tool > > to break them. > > With ACLs, stuff does break a bit. > > Capabilities are no problem though, as long as you keep them out of > the filesystem. The executable header method won't break with tar. > > - > 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/ >
- 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/
| |