[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1003081115280.3989@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 11:18:33 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kyle McMartin <kyle@...artin.ca>,
Alexander Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Upstream first policy
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> Quite untrue. I've actually *used* path based security systems (DEC10
> ACLs) and for almost every case its brain-dead.
>
> Imagine a world where this happened
Alan, stop right there.
You're making the same silly and incorrect mistake that Al did.
Namely thinking that you have to have just one or the other.
When you say "your /etc/passwd example is a special case", you are
admitting that there are two different cases, but then after that, you
still don't see the whole point I'm trying to make.
Let me try again:
THERE ARE DIFFERENT CASES
That's the point. Just admit that, and then let the calm of "Ooh, there
are different kinds of circumstances that may want different kinds of
rules" permeate you.
My whole (and only) argument is against the "only one way is correct"
mentality.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists