From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Allison Subject: Re: About ACL for IPC Object Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:00:23 -0800 Message-ID: <20100120220023.GC4141@jeremy-laptop> References: <6fb445941001200112o2934f805l4eb4f78000e9527e@mail.gmail.com> <6fb445941001200120m3aa5e944j54a6f645ce82d76f@mail.gmail.com> <20100120215048.GB4141@jeremy-laptop> Reply-To: Jeremy Allison Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: zhou peng , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Jeremy Allison Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100120215048.GB4141@jeremy-laptop> Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 01:50:48PM -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 05:20:00PM +0800, zhou peng wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > There are ACL in file system, but why there are no ACL implementation > > in IPC object, eg. shm, message queue, FIFO? > > Is there any fine grained granting in ipc object just like in file object? > > Not implemented yet, we can add this if you need it > (but probably will be a 3.6.0 feature). Never mind, got my lists mixed up and thought this was a Samba request (sorry :-).