[lkml]   [1996]   [Dec]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Proposal: restrict link(2)

Greg Alexander writes:
> That this thread continues is amazingly disgusting. There is _NO_ reason
> not to just add a simple mount option. It won't add more than 50 lines of
> code. Who cares if it breaks something, I'm not making you use it. I'd
> rather like to use it on my system. I don't want users locking files that
> they don't own anyways.

On Mon, 16 Dec 1996, Steve VanDevender wrote:
> If you think it's that easy and necessary, then do it yourself. You've
> got the kernel source, after all. I myself happen to think there's no
> good reason to change the behavior of link() in a way that makes it
> incompatible with other UNIX systems, or to make any such change part of
> a distribution Linux kernel.

I agree with Mr. VanDevender on this point. I personally have never
used Quota on Linux so maybe this idea is off, but how about adding the
smarts to the quota distribution? If this affects us, then it probably
affects any other Unix using the same quota system (is there any other
UNIX using the standard Linux quota?). I do not see the reasoning that we
need to break the kernel (be it a compile time option or what) and make it
non-Posix compliant just for one program. What options do we have to make
Quota able to understand the linking "problem".


Daniel Linder :: WebCentric Communications, Inc.
(402) 346-9466

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [W:0.113 / U:0.816 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site