| To: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: TAKE - change symlink perms to 777 |
| From: | Wessel Dankers <wsl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 15 Sep 2002 13:00:30 +0200 |
| In-reply-to: | <20020911193759.GJ714@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Mail-followup-to: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <200209102023.g8AKNdB29305@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20020910212614.GA10273@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20020911071824.GG714@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20020911122332.GD17696@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20020911193759.GJ714@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4i |
On 2002-09-11 11:37:59-0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > > They are not. Consider a sticky directory. > what are you talking about? they are still irrelevant. Usually, sticky directories check unlink() authorisation by looking at the access bits of the file itself. It seems that Linux currently always returns EPERM when you try to delete a symlink that is not owned by you if it's in a sticky directory. It wasn't like that the last time I tested it, so I was basing my statement on outdated assumptions. Sorry. You are right, symlink permissions are completly irrelevant. Even readlink() isn't thwarted by them. -- wsl@xxxxxxxxxxxx |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | FUND MANAGEMENT, JACKIE SIDEBE MODISE |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: 2.4.20pre5aa2, Andi Kleen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: TAKE - change symlink perms to 777, Ethan Benson |
| Next by Thread: | Re: TAKE - change symlink perms to 777, Ethan Benson |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |