From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: EACCESS vs ENOENT for nonexistent files-within-files Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:40:02 -0700 Message-ID: <4148C4C2.7070906@namesys.com> References: <20040915151803.vl9es48kkosg4k88@www.wagland.net> <16712.21927.550122.367489@thebsh.namesys.com> <41486A99.7050204@poelzi.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <41486A99.7050204@poelzi.org> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: "daniel.poelzleithner" Cc: Nikita Danilov , Paul Wagland , evilninja , reiserfs-list@namesys.com daniel.poelzleithner wrote: > Nikita Danilov wrote: > > | > attributes? Even if the file is world readable? Does this really > make sense? > | > | To make things clear: I have described in my message how things actually > | do work in reiser4, so I don't see the point of your questions. If you > | think reiser4 semantics is wrong (I am not happy with it too, by the > | way), propose to Namesys something better. > > I would suggest to allow lookups when the user can read the file. The x > bit should remain for exec on file objects, because console would be > pain when every file must have a exec bits to access meta data. > When the user can read a file, i don't think that the meta data can be > security risk, he has already access to the file. > And therefor not write access to file/metas without +w. > > No, its not perfect, but i think more unix like than +x for lookups on > files.] I like this for access to the builtin metafiles (whose permissions should normally be determined not individually but pased on the plugin and its permissions, but what about files within file-directories? For them I think we need to allow sys_reiser4 to change the bits independently, and for apps that don't know how to distinguish the 2 bits, oh well, change one change the other. What are your thoughts? > > regards > ~ Daniel