Re: Thinking outside the box on file systems

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 10:09:31AM -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Yep - way outside the box - and thus the title of the
> thread.
> 
> The idea is that people have permissions - not files.
> By people I mean users, groups, managers, applications
> etc. One might even specify that there are no
> permission restrictions at all. Part of the process
> would be that the kernel load what code it will use
> for the permission system. It might even be a little
> perl script you write.
> 
> 
> Also - you aren't even giving permission to access
> files. It's permission to access name patterns. One
> could apply REGEX masks to names to determine
> permissions. So if you have permission to the name you
> have permission to the file.

So if I have permission to access /foo/*x but no permission to access
/foo/*y, do I have permission to rename /foo/123x to /foo/123y and if I
do so, do I loose access to my file?  Can I move it back?

> Hard links would be multiple names pointing to the
> same file. Simlinks would be name aliases.

I think I prefer to keep my files inside the box.  That way I won't need
to get a bucket. :)

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