[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:0.016 / U:28.244 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site