| To: | Ethan Benson <erbenson@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Interesting XFS Behavior |
| From: | Jeff Breitner <memptr@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 7 Nov 2001 10:00:16 -0500 |
| In-reply-to: | <20011107005250.V887@plato.local.lan> |
| References: | <20011105225039.A599@asterix.gallien.de> <01110610360706.01823@office3> <20011107005250.V887@plato.local.lan> |
| Reply-to: | memptr@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Wednesday 07 November 2001 04:52 am, Ethan Benson wrote: > i don't see how, unless the directory is sticky and owned by someone > other then the user. > > You are correct, it's not the zero-byte file that prevents it, but the fact that part of the directory structure is owned by someone else. I made that realization later yesterday afternoon (slapping hand on forehead). However, interesting that the local user could still dump the zero-byte file. That is, however, not of any significance because it still sort of emulates the chattr +i and that keeps me from having to rewrite a bunch of scripts as well as keeping local users from doing stupid things. Thanks.. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: XFS Limitations rather?, Andi Kleen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: xfs and nfs, Christian, Chip |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Interesting XFS Behavior, Ethan Benson |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Interesting XFS Behavior, Timothy Shimmin |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |