Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
> 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
-
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