On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 02:23:32PM +0200, Wessel Dankers wrote:
> 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.
what are you talking about? they are still irrelevant.
> > 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.
i don't believe so since the behavior is irrelevant.
Description: PGP signature