[lkml]   [1999]   [Dec]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Can't hardlink in different dirs. (BUG#826)

On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Alexander Viro wrote:
> >Andrea, WHAT FOR? Give a rationale for your change, other than "let's
> >change it". Name a single benefit of proposed semantics.
> The rational is that I don't want to see my inodes sparse around the fs by
> an luser. I don't want to find them in /tmp. I don't care if he takes them
> opened, the root can kill his tasks and the fs layout will return normal
> then. It's a namespace issue. If I put my inode in my directory it must
> not finish into /tmp after some time by somebody that has nothing to do
> with me.

Inodes are not in any fscking directory. You are not on VMS. Learn the
bloody basics of UNIX filesystems _before_ playing with them. One more
time: Files Are Nameless. Namespace Is A Separate Thing. Name Is
Just A Reference To File, One Of Many Possible. Andrea, it's "F"
on UNIX 101. Links have no ownership, damnit.
... and F- on UNIX SA 101 - if you don't know the reasons to keep /tmp on
a separate filesystem.

As for "kill his tasks" - great, is that what you do when you decide to rm
something? I like that policy, but it may be a bit of, erm, overkill.

Besides, why on the Earth do you have finite quota for _root_, in the
first place? It's an instant fsckup(tm) waiting to happen. Sheesh...

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.120 / U:5.776 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site