Re: What's left over.

[john stultz]

On Thu, 2002-10-31 at 14:54, Werner Almesberger wrote:
> john stultz wrote:
> > Ugh, that seems dangerous. Too many forgotten ACL links and then I could
> > accidentally give a vague acquaintance access to all my data meant for
> > close friends. 
> 
> The idea is that you'd typically have (a) (small number of) specific
> location(s) where you keep your files representing groups, e.g.
> $HOME/acls/ for your personal lists, maybe ~project/acls/ for
> projects, etc.

Oh! Ok, that's exactly like the user-definable ACL groups I was
describing. My mistake, I thought you were suggesting some crazy ACL
symlink like: "Make file foo's ACL be the same as file blah's ACL" and
if I then go and add some untrusted user to blah's ACL it would then
automatically change foo's ACL. That just seemed a bit out there, but it
was just my mis-interpretation. Sorry :)

> If you think already this is dangerous, then you should be
> terrified by regular, non-aggregateable ACLs ;-)

Eh, as long as the ACLs are per-file, I can't ever accidentally give
access to a file I didn't mean to. The corner cases of "remove my
ex-friend from all my files" could be annoying, but could be done w/ the
equiv of chgrp -r 

> I'm not saying that ACLs aren't useful, only that the lack of
> aggregateability makes them hard to maintain, so that people
> frequently fall back to setup scripts that simple re-create
> their ACL configuration. Once you're at this point, ACLs have
> lost much of their usefulness, and you might as well use some
> suid program that creates groups for you.

Hmmm. I'm way out of my realm of competency here. I just know ACLs were
*really* useful w/ AFS. 

I probably should just go read the specs. Anyone have a pointer, or care
to explain what the differences are between AFS's ACLs and POSIX ACLs?

thanks
-john