help-hurd
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 4th set of permission bits?


From: Robert Marlow
Subject: Re: 4th set of permission bits?
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 14:31:20 +0800 (WST)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> > Hmm... I keep reading over and over and I don't see how my idea doesn't
> > work... maybe an example and you can show me where it is flawed.
> > 
> > say a file begins with the permissions following:
> > 
> > rwxr-xr-xr-x
> > 
> > ie, the last 3 bits for the non logged-in user is defaulted to
> > the same as that of worlds (the 2nd set of 3 bits).
> 
> Explain to me how this "is defaulted to" should work in your opinion.
> Defaulted to by whom? At which time?

What I was thinking was, defaulted by the system. ie it's always defaulted
to the same as world unless different permissions are explicitly defined.

> The problem is that you can't say use the world's bit as a default if
> nothing else is specified, as for every chmod() you have to specify all
> permission flags, as well as for every open() with O_CREAT. The "default"
> would be ---, which is probably not what you want if you don't want the
> not-logged in user to be anything special.

Ahh, that does make your meaning much more clear. I'm seeing now why the 
permissions
would typically have to default to --- rather than just being the same as 
world. How much trouble would it be to cause it to default differently just
in the case of the non logged-in user though? (for the user I mean, I already
realise the coding would likely be a pain in the *&$) Would it be more 
confusing to
a user to have to specify an extra flag in order to change the way the extra
permissions default or would it be more confusing to just have it default to
the same as world and perhaps have it seem a bit unintuitive for it to no longer
default to ---?

If an extra flag is required to be set, what does that default to? if it 
defaults
to the same as the world permissions, (ie not specifying the flag implies this
default) wouldn't that be the same as doing what I'm trying to do? And if 
someone
wants it to default to --- instead, wouldn't that be just the same as specifying
the permission as 0? This is as much effort as specifying a flag to do it. The 
same could be argued for the reverse situation. Perhaps having a flag there 
would 
make the deal a bit more conveniant... but is it really necessary as you say? 
I'm 
not even sure it's conveniant...

Also, I finally had a look at that ACL stuff. I think using ACL would be much
more conveniant - it already allows specific users to be set independantly of
the typical UGO. I believe NT and many other unix systems already use ACLs and
Jim Meyering told me that fileutils will be using ACLs upon its next release. 
This should greatly simplify implementation.

- --
from

da Bobstopper
(Public Key available at http://www.student.uwa.edu.au/~rmarlow/bobstopper.gpg)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE6KJdB/dIi4WVxTXMRAg9QAKCa37QTGwl7x2V6R0Lucnv6B4HnkACgnINe
Dt/wIUGfEug+oh01mVmRIe0=
=2RjS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]