From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 2 Nov 2002 01:59:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 2 Nov 2002 01:59:49 -0500 Received: from thunk.org ([140.239.227.29]:24475 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 2 Nov 2002 01:59:48 -0500 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 02:06:07 -0500 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Dax Kelson Cc: Rusty Russell , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@transmeta.com, davej@suse.de Subject: Re: Filesystem Capabilities in 2.6? Message-ID: <20021102070607.GB16100@think.thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Ts'o , Dax Kelson , Rusty Russell , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@transmeta.com, davej@suse.de References: <20021101085148.E105A2C06A@lists.samba.org> <1036175565.2260.20.camel@mentor> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1036175565.2260.20.camel@mentor> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 11:32:43AM -0700, Dax Kelson wrote: > > On Fri, 2002-11-01 at 01:49, Rusty Russell wrote: > > I'm down to 8 undecided features: 6 removed and one I missed earlier. > > How about Olaf Dietsche's filesystem capabilities support? It has been > posted a couple times to LK, yesterday even. Ugh. Personally, as I've said, I'm not convinced filesystem capabilities is worth it, providing the illusion of security --- and probably will make most systems more insecure because most system administrators won't be able to deal with fs capabilties competently. HOWEVER, if we're going to do it, Olaf's patches is really not the way to do it. If we're going to do it at all, the right way to do it is via extended attributes. Using a sparse file to store capabilities indexed by inode numbers is a bad idea; it will break if the user uses resize2fs on an ext2/3 filesystem, for example. - Ted