[lkml]   [1999]   [Dec]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Can't hardlink in different dirs. (BUG#826)
On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Alexander Viro wrote:

>... and F- on UNIX SA 101 - if you don't know the reasons to keep /tmp on
>a separate filesystem.

Would you call this a solution? This is a very ugly workaround. The fact
this works is only a side effect of the limitations of the hardlink.

So another solution is to take your data in a separated filesystem mounted
in /home/alexander so nobody will be able to do hardlinks across a

I don't buy this point, sorry. With a 500giga filesystem it make no sense
to make a partition for /tmp and I _want_ to be able to create hardlinks
all over the place exactly because they are useful. So the less filesystem
there are, the better will be for the hardlink case.

>As for "kill his tasks" - great, is that what you do when you decide to rm
>something? I like that policy, but it may be a bit of, erm, overkill.

I don't like it either, but you should see it as a very seldom thing. I
just assume we need a level of security that will allow an admin to
trivially catch very silly guys and that avoids to mess up the fs.

>Besides, why on the Earth do you have finite quota for _root_, in the
>first place? It's an instant fsckup(tm) waiting to happen. Sheesh...

/tmp is owned by root but the quota is increased in the owner of the inode
that is trashing metadata away in /tmp.

NOTE: I can as well ignore this thread as I don't need this feature for
myself and if nobody needs this kind of basic security either, than this
is wasted time.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.128 / U:2.184 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site