[lkml]   [1996]   [Dec]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Proposal: restrict link(2)

Dan Merillat <> writes:

> Would anything BREAK if we made link() depend on write access? And does
> POSIX require that ability?

POSIX is not entirely clear. From the 1996 edition of the spec:

} The implementation may require that the calling process has
} permission to access the existing file.

I'm pretty sure "access" means "read access," but I suppose one could
construe it to mean "write access."

However, I don't think the current implementation should be changed.
The real problem is buggy userspace programs; there may be a lot of
them, but they should still be fixed.

Aaron M. Ucko ( | For Geek Code, PGP public key, and other info,
finger | "Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous.
Do not attempt it in your home." -- T. Pratchett & N. Gaiman, _Good Omens_

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:38    [W:0.102 / U:4.632 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site