Re: [NOT OFFTOPIC] Re: groups

Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH (allbery@kf8nh.apk.net)
Mon, 07 Sep 1998 09:28:22 -0300


In message <199809071042.NAA02514@roos.tartu-labor>, Meelis Roos writes:
+-----
| AB> In theory user-manageable groups can provide the complete equivalent for
| AB> ACLs, however there will be as many groups as different sets of
|
| Can they (in unix user-group-other world)?
| Suppose I want to have rw- rights myself, rw- to group a, r-- to group b
| and nothig to the others. Multiple groups will not solve that case.
+--->8

It will, but in an ugly fashion: you set up a group which in effect grants
access to that file/directory, then put everyone who is to have access to it
in that group. You could also set up your groups a and b, but they would
not actually control access. (Like I said, ugly.)

Not only is it ugly, but it requires a *lot* of groups. I don't think we
want a group vector with 1024 groups in it....

Which is a pretty good indication that this is the wrong solution. :-)

-- 
brandon s. allbery	[os/2][linux][solaris][japh]	 allbery@kf8nh.apk.net
system administrator	     [WAY too many hats]	   allbery@ece.cmu.edu
electrical and computer engineering					 KF8NH
carnegie mellon university

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/faq.html