tech-kern archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: Adding linux_link(2) system call (Was: Re: link(2) on a symlink to a directory fails)

> I seem to remember that once upon a time, the idea for symlinks was
> that they were magic in some way, and would not have mode bits,
> owner/group, etc.  Not having a link count would fit with that.

It would.  A filesystem that implements symlinks that way would
presumably refuse attempts to hardlink to a symlink.  I don't think
I've ever suggested that a filesystem should be unable to refuse such
hardlink attempts; indeed, some filesystems don't do symlinks at all.

>> (c) I've long thought there should be a way to update a symlink
>> in-place.
> Yes!

I've been thinking about it ever since symperm went in.  The write bit
is unused, and it seems to me it would make sense for it to control the
ability to update the link-to string in-place...but of course there's
no way to do that quite aside from how permission to do it is
controlled.  (Though I suppose symlink(2) on an existing writable link
could be made to do it.  But I'm not sure if VOP_SYMLINK on an existing
link should do it....)

/~\ The ASCII                             Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML      
/ \ Email!           7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index