Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: Proposal: restrict link(2) | From | (Aaron M. Ucko) | Date | 13 Dec 1996 11:02:36 -0500 |
| |
Dan Merillat <Dan@merillat.org> 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 (amu@mit.edu) | For Geek Code, PGP public key, and other info, finger amu@monk.mit.edu. | "Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home." -- T. Pratchett & N. Gaiman, _Good Omens_
|  |