| 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: TAKE - change symlink perms to 777, Ethan Benson |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: TAKE - change symlink perms to 777, Tad Dolphay |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: TAKE - change symlink perms to 777, Ethan Benson |
| Next by Thread: | Re: TAKE - change symlink perms to 777, Tad Dolphay |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |