Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 Jan 1999 10:33:11 -0500 (EST) | From | Gregory Maxwell <> | Subject | Re: odd chown difference between 2.0 and 2.1pre kernels |
| |
On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, System Administrator wrote: > Forgive my stupidity, but under 2.0.x i always considered the setuid loss > on chown a flaw. I, personally, feel it should keep the setuid bit. If > you're chowning something YOU own, setuid'd to you, why take the bit off?? > Am I missing something trivial here?
All togeather too often, sysadms will chown a mess of users files to root to prevent the user from playing with them.. opps.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |