From owner-freebsd-fs  Fri Oct 31 05:29:10 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id FAA05189
          for fs-outgoing; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 05:29:10 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-fs)
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id FAA05180
          for <freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 31 Oct 1997 05:29:06 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au)
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.8.7/8.6.9) id AAA17135; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 00:25:57 +1100
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 00:25:57 +1100
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199710311325.AAA17135@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com, wosch@cs.tu-berlin.de
Subject: Re: disabled symlinks
Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG, roberto@keltia.freenix.fr
Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>> } diff -u -r1.51.2.6 vfs_syscalls.c
>> } --- vfs_syscalls.c	1997/10/23 18:04:55	1.51.2.6
>> } +++ vfs_syscalls.c	1997/10/30 22:24:47
>> } @@ -1326,8 +1328,10 @@
>> }  		return (error);
>> }  	vp = nd.ni_vp;
>> }  	error = vn_stat(vp, &sb, p);
>> } -	if (vp->v_type == VLNK)
>> } +	if (vp->v_type == VLNK && 
>> } +		(vp->v_mount->mnt_flag & MNT_NOSYMLINKFOLLOW) != 0)
>                                                              ^^
> 
>> This test looks backwards to me (it changes the behavior if the
>> new nosymlinkfollow option is not set).  I'm also not clear as
>> to why the behaviour even depends on the option. 

It's also wrong because it breaks the setting of S_IFLNK.

>vfs_syscalls.c rev 1.62
>Symlinks do not have modes though, they are accessable to everything that
>can read the directory (as before).  They are made to show this fact at
>lstat time (they appear as mode 0777 always, since that's how the the
>lookup routines in the kernel treat them).    

This seems OK.

>>  Also, shouldn't
>> the same change be made to both lstat() and olstat()?
>
>This is a cosmetic change. I don't think we should change
>old system calls if it is not necessary. I doubt that anybody
>use an old ls(1) command.

Old syscalls should work as consistently as possible if they are
supported.

Bruce