Re: [PATCH] PAG support, try #2

From: Ingo Oeser (ingo.oeser@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de)
Date: Thu May 15 2003 - 06:18:25 EST

Next message: Christopher Hoover: "RE: [PATCH] 2.5.68 FUTEX support should be optional"
Previous message: Ingo Oeser: "Re: [PATCH] 2.5.68 FUTEX support should be optional"
In reply to: David Howells: "Re: [PATCH] PAG support, try #2"
Next in thread: H. Peter Anvin: "Re: [PATCH] PAG support, try #2"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 06:37:00PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> And then you have to have some method of prioritisation. You may find that
> user dhowells has a token for (fs=AFS,cell=redhat.com) and group engineering
> has a token for (fs=AFS,cell=redhat.com). Which do you use?

Union of both. And remember to subtract negative ACLs from
positive ACLs. Prioritize users over groups in case of explicit
mention.

This is standard permission checking.

Hmm, sounds too simple, so it must be wrong ;-)

Regards

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

Next message: Christopher Hoover: "RE: [PATCH] 2.5.68 FUTEX support should be optional"
Previous message: Ingo Oeser: "Re: [PATCH] 2.5.68 FUTEX support should be optional"
In reply to: David Howells: "Re: [PATCH] PAG support, try #2"
Next in thread: H. Peter Anvin: "Re: [PATCH] PAG support, try #2"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 15 2003 - 22:00:57 EST