Re: Linux-kernel-daily-digest digest, Vol 1 #171 - 281 msgs

[Bill Crawford]

vda wrote:

> >  Perhaps we should not distinguish between read and execute on programs
> > either?  After all, they're not much different, are they?

 This was intended to be sarcastic :o)

> Yes, we can. In fact, NT lives with it with no problem. It is very common
> in NT to have rx on all readable files regardless of their 'executability'.
> If someone have 'r' perms, he can make a copy of a file, flag it with x and
> execute.

 In theory one can do just that on Un*x systems too.  That's why setid
bits can't be set by just anybody.

 What if the program is setuid and executable by a group but not other?
We do this with "su" on servers.

 Now, ACLs I want to see widely supported on Linux, and *used* properly
too.  They've been little used in most environments I've seen even on
systems that do support them, which is a shame as they are a necessary
and useful idea.  Yes, the Un*x permissions system does have some
limitations, but let's not break *all* the existing software and OSs
that use them, since what you're suggesting will not improve things.

> versions of it). It's too late. I've made patch for chmod which adds new +R
> flag to that effect.

 Why is that needed anyway?  By default directories get execute bit set
when they're created, at least in my environment; if you're extending
permissions you can use "go=u" or "o=g" to broaden the permissions, as
I would expect the existing perms to be correct on files vs directories
in most cases.

> --
> vda

-- 
/* Bill Crawford, Unix Systems Developer, Ebone (formerly GTS Netcom) */
#include <stddiscl>
const char *addresses[] = {
    "[e-mail]", "[e-mail]",     // work
    "[e-mail]", "[e-mail]"                    // home
};