xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: TAKE - change symlink perms to 777

To: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: TAKE - change symlink perms to 777
From: Wessel Dankers <wsl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 14:23:32 +0200
In-reply-to: <20020911071824.GG714@plato.local.lan>
Mail-followup-to: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <200209102023.g8AKNdB29305@stout.americas.sgi.com> <20020910212614.GA10273@tapu.f00f.org> <20020911071824.GG714@plato.local.lan>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4i
On 2002-09-10 23:18:24-0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 02:26:14PM -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 03:23:39PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > > mode = 0777 & ~current->fs->umask;

> why? symlink permissions are completly irrelevant.

They are not. Consider a sticky directory.

> i think if one were to set a standard uniform permission on symlinks
> it should be 444 or 555, symlinks by thier nature are readonly, the
> only way to alter them is unlink() and re symlink() so why pretend.

That's a change that needs to be at the VFS level. For now it would just
look bad for XFS to differ in behaviour.

Kind regards,

--
Wessel Dankers <wsl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

The static electricity routing is acting up...


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>