> On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Jesse Pollard wrote:
>
> > > ls is fixable. Possibly by extending "ls -l" to show acl's or at
> > > least indicate in some way that acl's are present. The latter may
> > > be preferable to avoid script incompatibilities, sonething like this:
> > > Arw-r--r-- 1 helge helge 140 Feb 9 1999 .bash_profile
> > > The 'A' indicates that acl(s) are present, the user may then use
> > > something like "ls --acl" and get the full acl information.
> >
> > Due to the possible size of the ACL (it is a list, after all), the UNIX
> > ls command should not try to implement a "--acl". They could list up
> > to 256 ACL entries, which would definitely be a pain in a "ls -R --acl".
> > They only show a flag to indicate an ACL exists. It would be up to the
> > user to select an appropriate utility to display the ACL for a file/directory.
> >
> > Consider: ls is used as a search tool to locate certain files that match a
> > pattern. To exend ls to be able to search an ACL to match a pattern would
> > be unreasonable; but it is reasonable for a dedicated utility.
>
> This brings up another issue.
>
> Who is allowed to see what ACLs are in place?
>
> I know I would feel pretty insulted if I looked at a friend's ACL and he
> gave everyone BUT me LOOKUP access to his directories. It'd also suck
> for that person if I found out. :)
I would hazzard a guess at, if you can read the files, you can read
the ACLs on that file. Otherwise it would be, if you can read the directory,
you can read the ACLs, final thouhts, you have to be on the appropriate ACL
list to read the ACLs. ;) Just a couple thoughts.
Stephen
-
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/