Rich access control lists

Posted Oct 21, 2015 21:27 UTC (Wed) by fandingo (guest, #67019)
In reply to: Rich access control lists by Cyberax
Parent article: Rich access control lists

Ummm, yes we do. I provided a really simple example of where this is really needed. You're just saying the same thing that caused my initial reply.

Rich access control lists

Posted Oct 21, 2015 22:35 UTC (Wed) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (2 responses)

Except that there's simply no guarantee that a large write will be atomic. If many writers are appending into one file, they _will_ get corruption eventually. And anyway, rsyslog or journald have already pretty much solved this problem.

I worked with Windows ACLs extensively. That's the reason why I hate complicated permission systems.

Rich access control lists

Posted Oct 21, 2015 22:57 UTC (Wed) by fandingo (guest, #67019) [Link]

You're assuming multiple writers, but I don't know why. This has nothing to do with ACLs. It's an IO synchronization problem.

Rich access control lists

Posted Oct 29, 2015 14:13 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

> I worked with Windows ACLs extensively. That's the reason why I hate complicated permission systems.

As others have said, it's just so complicated ...

And I know I've said it before, but Pr1mos just had read, write, use. For files or directories. So that makes six different permissions. And using them was simple - if your user was explicitly specified, that was what you got. If you weren't explicitly named, but your groups were, those permissions were added together. And if neither your user, nor a group you were in, was specified, you just got the default permissions. Very simple, very easy to understand.

Cheers,
Wol