Subject: Re: Symlink ownership
To: der Mouse <mouse@Collatz.McRCIM.McGill.EDU>
From: Joao Carlos Mendes Luis <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/01/1995 19:34:55
> 1) Symlinks are full inode entities, with all the info showing through
> when lstat() is done.
> 1A) Attributes can't be changed.
> 1B) Attributes can be changed with chown(), utimes(), etc.
> 1C) Attributes can be changed with lchown(), lutimes(), etc.
> 2) Symlinks are inodes or funny directory entries or maybe something
> else, but they appear ownerless, timeless, etc.
> My personal order of preference for these solutions is 1B, 1C, 1A, 2.
> It might be possible to persuade me to switch around the subcases of 1,
> but I really don't like 2.
> der Mouse
If this is a voting, mine is: 2, 1A, 1C (never 1B)
I prefer to think symlinks as a "special" pseudo hard link. ANY
references to the link SHOULD be really done to the file. It only
purpose is to resolve cross-device linking, so should as most as
possible emulate hard link operation.
Any operation direct to the symlink could be thought as a special
case, and so, can have any special behavior. Even having no owner or
being implemented as an special directory entry. And this is case 2.
I can see no problems with this that does not also happen with hard
link. (But I can be wrong, of course... :)
Just my humble opinion,
Joao Carlos Mendes Luis email@example.com
+55 21 290-4698 ( Job ) firstname.lastname@example.org
Network Manager UFRJ/COPPE/CISI
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro