> 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.
This was discussed internally at SGI some time ago in PV 831071. At that time
nobody could find any POSIX or other standard mandating that symlink
perms be set to 777. Furthermore, at the time xfsrestore relied on
the symlink perms being set using the umask. I don't know if this is
still the case.