Subject: Re: magic symlinks: uid keyword translation
To: Martin Husemann <>
From: Bill Studenmund <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 10/30/2006 15:33:01
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 08:02:53PM +0100, Martin Husemann wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 11:58:39AM -0500, Chapman Flack wrote:
> > In that case, the sticky-bit suggestion ought to
> > satisfy your desire for a way to mark them. I, too, think
> > that per-link makes more sense than per-FS, and much more
> > sense than per-system
> No matter what you do with the sticky mark, I still want a way to absolut=
> 100% positively realy shut this feature off on some systems. The sysctl k=
> works fine for me.
> I'm not opposed to additionally make this all happen only for sticky syml=

I personally much prefer the idea of just doing it. If we have magic=20
symlinks, we have them. The idea of needing to look at the bits on a link=
strikes me as making adminsitration harder, not easier.

Also, AFAIK, AFS has had this concept for well over a decade. I've been=20
exposed to it for over 15 years. It's NOT NEW. I fail to see how the=20
concerns being expressed (the user experience and the readdir stuff)=20
wouldn't have come up before, so let's see what AFS folks did.

Take care,


Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (NetBSD)