Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news-1.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: shred or scrub
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 13:01:27 +0100
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <87zjj5vf1k.fsf@sable.mobileactivedefense.com>
References: <limvgj$tse$1@dont-email.me> <slrnlkvkrl.2p2.kristof@vega.codepro.be> <liqmp7$4md$1@dont-email.me> <liqsf7$6sg$1@dont-email.me> <liri6m$tk9$1@dont-email.me> <lj393j$iha$1@dont-email.me> <lj5fs8$49k$1@dont-email.me> <lj6p5h$m0g$1@dont-email.me> <lj89en$q2a$1@dont-email.me> <ljbt7r$5bc$1@dont-email.me> <ljdbhe$ol8$1@dont-email.me> <87k3adxomn.fsf@sable.mobileactivedefense.com> <ljg06q$f5s$1@dont-email.me> <87wqear01o.fsf@sable.mobileactivedefense.com> <ljl6uh$rbi$1@dont-email.me> <874n1dwvo0.fsf@sable.mobileactivedefense.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: individual.net 19rM51I4Dla8bHqTVgELvgO2j3ZQwA72CJ/4HLkD/ATzpIxos=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2U7UHN5SFG/gDgM4kvCfi7R4GSI= sha1:xjguS1jY65medj/5A0GUmiS2m7k=
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux)
Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.development.system:664

Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com> writes:
> crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> writes:
>> On 04/27/2014 02:26 PM, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> As already mentioned above, locking isn't needed for concurrent read
>>> accesses. Also, group access rights have other uses. A common one would
>>> be 'allowing all members of a group read or read/write access to some
>>> filesystem objects or filesystem objects but deny them the ability to
>>> change the permissions'. This will usually mean a file owned by root in
>>> a directory owned by root whose 'group access permissions' permit the
>>> intended access, eg, a file storing a database access password needed by
>>> some processes.
>>
>> If you to need to continue arguing toward winning a debate, you'll
>> have to do that without my participation.  I'm not interested in
>> winning debates, I'm interested in better software, which imo includes
>> moving past the archaic furniture that linux inherited from unix.
>
> As I already wrote in the other post, I'm not really argueing, more
> pointing out facts which are (or - to me - at least seam to be) at odds
> with what you've been writing. If you were interested in something other
> than "winning the debate", you'd either admit that you were wrong or
> explain what I didn't understand and thus, got wrong, instead of
> asserting that "whoever mentions something which doesn't find into your
> agenda is Surely Evil[tm]/ interested in bad stuff for nefarious
> purposes".

As a particularly striking example: Assuming that a filesystem namespace
shared among multiple processes is not supposed to exist, how is the
system supposed to provide access to 'applications' (since they cannot
be files accessible via the filesystem namespace anymore)?