[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:0.021 / U:46.656 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site