Re: Things that Longhorn seems to be doing right

Hans Reiser
2003-11-02T21:43:03Z

David S. Miller wrote:

>On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 23:47:26 +0300
>Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>If you say that names resolve to single objects and never should
>>resolve to sets of objects, we disagree.
>>
>>
>
>While I have no personal opinion either way on the utility of such an
>idea, I do think that if we ever do support a "one to many" mapping of
>names to inodes we should make you do the security audit of a full
>Linux system in the presence of this feature, deal? :-)
>
>
>
>
;-)

I don't know how seriously you desire me to take your comment, so
forgive me if I take it too seriously.

You can't upgrade existing APIs to handle sets of inodes without
changing them in ways that require source code modification, so one can
presume that the app writer used the new APIs as correctly as he
performs all his other changes to his code.

Agreed?

Of course, bash would be much more secure if we got rid of globbing (*),
yes? Ted, can you write and send a patch in to the bash maintainer for
that? ;-)

--
Hans