Subject: Re: Symlink ownership
To: None <Chris_G_Demetriou@BALVENIE.PDL.CS.CMU.EDU, email@example.com>
From: Olaf Seibert <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/26/1995 17:44:39
Niklas Hallqvist wrote:
> I wasn't paying attention in the beginning of this thread. What
> really was the problem that these fake ownerships introduce? If we
> really like them be "not-owned", perhaps "nobody" should own them (the
> default root-mapping of NFS), or maybe the "real [ug]id" of the
> stat-calling process. Hmm, the former wouldn't solve the sticky bit
> dir problem, unless symlinks were special cased in unlink.
If symlinks are not owned by anybody, then there is no possible
solution for sticky directories (that makes sense). Example: /tmp.
The least requirement one can pose on symlinks is that if you were able
to make a symlink in a directory, you should also be able to remove it
(just like it works with normal files and everything else). This would
1. everybody (who can write in the directory) can remove the symlink. This
is however undoing the effect the sticky bit is supposed to have.
2. the symlink has an owner.
Personally, I vote for 2., unless these is some extreme elegance in the
current concept that I haven't grokked so far.
Have you indecently fucked this Exon idiot and his allies today?
___ Copyright 1995 Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert. All Rights Reserved.
\X/ You are not allowed to read this using any kind of Micro$oft product.