From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Jacobowitz Subject: Re: [RFC] FUSE permission modell (Was: fuse review bits) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 18:13:24 -0400 Message-ID: <20050411221324.GA10541@nevyn.them.org> References: <20050331200502.GA24589@infradead.org> <20050411114728.GA13128@infradead.org> <20050411153619.GA25987@nevyn.them.org> <20050411181717.GA1129@nevyn.them.org> <20050411192223.GA3707@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, akpm@osdl.org, viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk Return-path: Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.172.17]:54922 "EHLO nevyn.them.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261954AbVDKWN0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Apr 2005 18:13:26 -0400 To: Miklos Szeredi Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 09:56:29PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > Well the sanity check on the "server" side is always enforced. You > can't "trick" sftp or ftp to not check permissions. So checking on > the "client" side too (where the fuse daemon is running) makes no > sense, does it? That argument doesn't make much sense to me. But we're at the end of my useful contributions to this discussion; I'm going to be quiet now and hope some folks who know more about filesystems have more useful responses. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC