From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755465Ab0CHTTf (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Mar 2010 14:19:35 -0500 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:50183 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754515Ab0CHTT2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Mar 2010 14:19:28 -0500 Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 11:18:33 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds X-X-Sender: torvalds@localhost.localdomain To: Alan Cox cc: Ingo Molnar , James Morris , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kyle McMartin , Alexander Viro Subject: Re: Upstream first policy In-Reply-To: <20100308190857.400bde09@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Message-ID: References: <20100308094647.GA14268@elte.hu> <20100308173008.7ae389ab@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20100308190857.400bde09@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Alan Cox wrote: > > Quite untrue. I've actually *used* path based security systems (DEC10 > ACLs) and for almost every case its brain-dead. > > Imagine a world where this happened Alan, stop right there. You're making the same silly and incorrect mistake that Al did. Namely thinking that you have to have just one or the other. When you say "your /etc/passwd example is a special case", you are admitting that there are two different cases, but then after that, you still don't see the whole point I'm trying to make. Let me try again: THERE ARE DIFFERENT CASES That's the point. Just admit that, and then let the calm of "Ooh, there are different kinds of circumstances that may want different kinds of rules" permeate you. My whole (and only) argument is against the "only one way is correct" mentality. Linus