Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 13 Dec 1996 12:31:13 -0500 (EST) | From | Dan Merillat <> | Subject | Re: Proposal: restrict link(2) |
| |
On Fri, 13 Dec 1996, Steve VanDevender wrote:
> "And therefore modify?" I get the impression that some of the people > who are arguing about this don't at all understand the semantics of > link(). > > If you link /etc/shadow to /tmp/shadow, you have done none of the > following: > > * changed the permissions of /tmp/shadow > * changed the owner or group owner of /tmp/shadow > > Not only have you not changed those, you cannot change those. You have > created another reference to the inode, and that's all.
Theodore Y. Ts' <tytso@MIT.EDU> Writes:
> Incorrect. Being able to link to a file does not mean you can change > it.
Sheesh. I said link() modifies a file. And it _DOES_ It changes the file location, which _MAY_ change permissions of that file! (think of a group-only directory and someone in that group makes a link outside of it)
It changes the lifespan of the file. It takes control of the file away from the owner, who can no longer delete the file. link() in a directory you own, mode 700. Now the owner _CANNOT_ touch the file after they remove it! So yes, link() DOES modify a file and nobody can claim it does not!
--Dan
|  |