-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 08:48:04PM +0000, Brian wrote:
> On Wed 09 Nov 2016 at 21:35:14 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
[...]
> > Hm. Layering error.
>
> Sorry. I'm unfamiliar with this term ("layering errors")
Sorry. Was meaning to say "layering violation": you design complex systems
in layers and try to take care of each aspect in the relevant layer. In
our case, the OS ("lower layer" of sorts) takes care of access control,
the application takes care of the user. This does away with subtle
irritations (in our case: "but the user *has* access permissions to
the block device, why...?) brought about by conflicting decisions
in different layers ("has explicitly to be UID 0" vs. "has to have
read or read/write access to the block device).
> and was just trying to point out that the basis on which the report was
> submitted is no longer valid and an additional report could make the
> point without relying on outdated ideas.
regards
- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlgjkWgACgkQBcgs9XrR2kazcQCdFWjUKAkxdBKKnj8ONpNlJi1h
aRkAnievFzGn6TeACL0LcEC3Rlioc6LR
=Z5Jw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
