[openbeos] Re: status of OpenBeOS
- From: François Revol <revol@xxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 01:48:56 +0200 (CEST)
En réponse à Leon Timmermans <openbeos@xxxxxxxxx>:
[snip]
> > > It will probably be hard not to allow anyone to send messages to
> other
> > >
> > > ports, but at least the clone_area() part should be pretty easy to
> > > solve ;-)
> > >
> >
> > I'd go for adding a permissions byte to ports, areas and sems...
> > just good old Unix semantics, with a umask-like variable
> > to set default behaviour.
> > (a correctly implemented umask... R5 implements it in libroot
> currently,
> > so fork doesn't inherit it :^)
>
> Permission bytes are really outdated.
> Most Multi user OS'es are slowly going to ACL's , it really is a more
> flexible solution.
> permission bits really are too limited!
> We'd better skip that phase.
>
I know I may be "old school" (hmm I'm only 24, but hey...), but I don't
find that many pros to ACLs...
Anyway I don't mind having ACLs implemented in the filesystem (even,
the attributes really make a nice place to put them (and the linux
proposed implementation also implements filesystem attributes on
purpose).
But I don't feel ok adding ACLs to areas, ports and semaphores...
it's really overkill and wouldn't just work IMO.
On the opposite adding a perm byte and checking perms accordingly to
UIDs/GIDs shouldn't impact performance that much.
Just my (EPERM) cents.
François.
Other related posts:
