Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 17 Dec 1996 15:39:30 +1100 | From | Richard Gooch <> | Subject | Re: Proposal: restrict link(2) |
| |
Albert Cahalan writes: > > From: Snow Cat <snowcat@netgate.net> > > >> 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.
Regards,
Richard....
|  |