[lkml]   [1996]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Proposal: restrict link(2)

Albert Cahalan writes:
> From: Snow Cat <>
> >> I'm always asking *why* (for which reason, or maybe better which
> >> purpose) something is done/allowed/not allowed/implemented/...
> >> for the question "why is a user allowed to create hard like to
> >> files of other users" I haven't found any positive answer yet
> >> (please don't tell me "that's UNIX fs semantics" again;)
> >> and I found/read no answer so far what we'd break if we would
> >> change the behaviour of link(). I still think that it *absolute*
> >> no real application will be affected...
> >
> > Hard links are pretty useful for sharing large files. When I was in
> > university, I used to make links to large programs compiled by other
> > users - like gdb, irc, etc. In this way it didn't take any additional
> > disk space and if the owner deleted the program later, I still had a
> > copy.
> If the owner deleted the program because they ran out of disk quota,
> you made sure that _they_ still owned a copy. You did not have a copy.

Assuming quotas are being used in the first place...

> I'd say this is a reason to restrict link() to the file owner.

This should be a generic mount option (quotas are irrelevant),
disabled by default.



 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:38    [W:0.101 / U:0.476 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site