[lkml]   [1996]   [Dec]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Proposal: restrict link(2)

I was curious about the subject, and noticed to my suprise that
I could link to files owned by root, leaving the links in
/tmp.... but I could not delete the link.

Now I suppose that this makes sense, after all:

1. I can't assume ownership since I could then change perms.
2. Root owns the file, so I can't delete it.
3. I could delete it from my home directory since I own that.
----> but in /tmp the sticky bit is set.

This suggests that the sticky bit already DOES imply different
semantics here. I can create all the links I want of files into
/tmp but cannot remove them.

IMHO --> The current semantics are inconsistent.

The idea of the sticky bit is that you can create and delete
your _own_ files. This semantic is ignore by link(2), which is
using the semantic for a privately owned non-sticky directory.
Develop free apps?
Probable-Possible, my black hen,
She lays eggs in the Relative When.
She doesn't lay eggs in the Positive Now
Because she's unable to postulate how.
-- Frederick Winsor

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:38    [W:0.043 / U:1.604 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site