Subject: Re: Symlink ownership (let's go back)
To: None <current-users@NetBSD.ORG>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Collatz.McRCIM.McGill.EDU>
Date: 08/06/1995 07:41:06
>> If, as you say, POSIX specifies most calls to follow terminal
>> symlinks, see no reason we can't add parallel calls a la lchown();
>> we wouldn't need many - just one for each attribute-setting call, of
>> which there are only five, by my count: chmod, chown, chflags,
>> utimes, truncate.
(Actually, I see no reason we can't simply ignore POSIX on this point.
Especially since it's only a draft.)
> What would ltruncate() do?
Hm, true. Okay, scratch ltruncate(). Unless you implement another
suggestion of mine, which I don't think I made publicly: turn symlinks
into funny files. How? Add a "don't follow terminal symlink" flag bit
to open(), and let read() and write() access the link-to string. Then
ltruncate() would make a lot more sense.
It's also a pretty perverted idea, and unless someone can come up with
a reason why it's a good one, I'm not going to bother even looking to
see how hard it would be to do. (It'd be quite difficult over NFS, for
one, since NFS is built around the traditional symlink model.)