Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 12:47:07 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: Joshua Goodall <joshua@roughtrade.net>, freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: flags on symlinks Message-ID: <3B5B2DBB.16B607E2@mindspring.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0107222210480.25554-100000@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bruce Evans wrote: > > Is there a particular reason why there's no capability for setting flags > > on symlinks? the chflags syscall uses namei with FOLLOW, and changing this > > to NOFOLLOW allows chflags(2) to Do What I Want (i.e. SF_IMMUTABLE on a > > VLNK) Flags are associated with inodes, and symlinks do not have inodes in the common case, as they exist solely in the directory entry, unless they are too long. > > is there a filesystem train crash awaiting me for doing this, or am I in > > the clear? I realise it changes the semantics of chflags(1) so an > > alternative syscall or a follow/nofollow boolean addition to struct > > chflags_args is better than this hack. > > There should be a separate lchflags syscall for this. Obtain it from > NetBSD. Several utilities need to be updated to handle flags on symlinks. > I'm not sure if NetBSD has implemented this. Pretty clearly, there should _NOT_ be a seperate system call; the damn thing should just work. Adding a seperate system call means theaching everything that deals with flags about it (ls, chflags, every FS supporing symlinks, etc.). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3B5B2DBB.16B607E2>