Re: filesystem ACLs vs. CVS

[Noel Yap]

--- "Greg A. Woods" <address@hidden> wrote:
> [ On Friday, February 22, 2002 at 10:28:16 (+0100),
> Peter Ring wrote: ]
> > Subject: RE: ANN: cvssh - secure ext-to-pserver
> bridge
> >
> > We need to control access on files that cannot
> (i.e., CANNOT) be logically
> > arranged into disjunct directories.
> 
> Certainly you can rearrange your files.  You just
> don't want to.
> 
> Anything like this is possible.

I think the only scenario this might occur in is if
they're trying to manage third-party source.  The only
thing I can think of to manage such source would be to
use some sort of trusted OS (ie one that manages
permissions more securely than standard OS's).  Here's
one such OS: http://www.trustedbsd.org/

> No, you can't control the group owner of the files
> either, at least not
> without going to a great deal of effort (i.e.
> internally re-engineering
> how CVS re-writes ,v files).

This part can be done using a loginfo script (assuming
the user can chgrp to the particular group).

> I doubt ACLs will buy you anything here either, at
> least not without
> adding explicit ACL support to CVS.  RCS files are
> re-created every time
> they are modified (or tagged).  That means that
> without ACL support in
> CVS the new one will have the default ACLs any file
> created by the user
> would have -- any ACLs set on the old ,v file would
> be lost.

I've been able to create a loginfo script that would
recreate the file ACLs based on the ACLs of the parent
directory (default ACLs are no good since they make
the files writable and executable).  But if the user
needs to control ACLs on a per-file basis, they're out
of luck short of changing their OS.

Noel

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com