| |||||||||||||
Trustees LinuxTrustees LinuxPosted Nov 18, 2004 10:53 UTC (Thu) by jamesh (guest, #1159)Parent article: Trustees Linux
ACLs don't have to be complicated. The Windows ACL implementation has a nice feature of being able to inherit the parent's ACL as a base for the file's ACL.
If every file in the system has this bit set in their ACL, the permissions of the root directory will apply to every file on the system. If you apply an ACL to someone's home directory, those permissions will apply to every file inside it, etc.
This covers much of the ease of use problems with ACLs, since you don't usually need to apply ACLs to many files/directories.
(Log in to post comments)
Trustees Linux Posted Nov 18, 2004 14:25 UTC (Thu) by duck (guest, #4444) [Link] Hi,As far as I know the default ACLs on a Linux directory (if enabled ans supported by the file system!) work very much the same way... Cheers Peter
Trustees Linux Posted Nov 18, 2004 15:54 UTC (Thu) by bfields (subscriber, #19510) [Link] > As far as I know the default ACLs on a Linux directory (if enabled ans> supported by the file system!) work very much the same way...
One crucial difference: default ACLs on a directory are copied onto newly created objects in the directory, but don't affect preexisting objects. In Windows, my understanding is that children just reference the inheritable ACLs on their parents, so a change to an inheritable ACL on a parent (or any ancestor) immediately affects the child.
Trustees Linux Posted Sep 12, 2007 22:05 UTC (Wed) by bfields (subscriber, #19510) [Link] Hah. I just happened across this 3-year-old comment and noticed that it's totally wrong. At least, from what Windows documentation I've read since then, Windows works just like Linux in this case, except its acl model makes it easier to propagate changes to inheritable acls recursively.
|
|||||||||||||