Subject: Re: building a userland interface to a kernel structure
To: Dustin Sallings <email@example.com>
From: Objects In Mirror Are Closer Than They Appear <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/12/1999 12:11:09
Dustin Sallings sez:
* On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, Michael L. Hitch wrote:
* This is good for reading, but how might I, say, add an entry to a
* linked list in a kernel structure from userland? And where should I put
* this list?
* Basically, I'm breaking root down a little bit, and I want to
* define ACLs for something that's been root/not root to have a more
* granular security control. Down with root!
You can "down with root" all you want, but as a UNIX user and administrator,
I expect that there will be a deific user; if it goes away, I'll just
create one who belongs to all access groups, myself.
Not that ACLs are _bad_, mind you, IFF we can implement them intelligently
(I don't think such a solution exists, actually).
But "root" is a historical part of UNIX (NetBSD/Trademarks notwithstanding).
I personally don't want to see "root" go away because that would seriously
begin to impede what I do.
On the other hand, if you're trying to say that certain users should be
given certain accesses, well, that's what the group lists are for.
I'm sure I'm missing something, and I'm really not trying to be acerbic
about it, so please accept my apology in advance if I seem to be a
smart-ass about it. I try to keep an open mind, but if there's no One
True SuperUser on the system, having to decide who gets what access
is a royal pain. I've had to administrate (sic) NT, and I don't like
the granularity they have there -- it's possible to completely castrate
the local administrator.
Friends don't let friends use Windows NT.