Subject: Re: Symlink ownership
To: None <current-users@NetBSD.ORG>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Collatz.McRCIM.McGill.EDU>
Date: 08/06/1995 08:24:49
>> An alternative would be to have chown()/chmod()/utimes() (as
>> necessary; currently the only problem seems to be with chown()) have
>> an extra argument at the end: u_int nofollow, which, if set, would
>> (*func)() the link instead of the object.
> This change would break all existing code that uses these syscalls.
> All the calls would have to be tweaked to add the extra argument.
Not necessarily. This could be done in the library routine wrappers,
with the kernel entry points taking the extra argument and the library
routines breaking it out into (say) chown() which appends a 0 to its
argument list and lchown() which appends a 1. This would buy you the
semantics of having two different calls, without having to add Yet
Another Syscall to the kernel.