Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 02:14:15 +0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@spinner.DIALix.COM> To: =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= <ache@nagual.ru> Cc: CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-sys@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern vfs_syscalls.c src/sys/ufs/ufs ufs_lookup.c ufs_vnops.c Message-ID: <199703311814.CAA16522@spinner.DIALix.COM> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 31 Mar 1997 19:51:52 %2B0400." <Pine.BSF.3.96.970331195106.530F-100000@nagual.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
=?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= wrote: > On Mon, 31 Mar 1997, Peter Wemm wrote: > > > 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). > > Thanks! BTW, what about setting immutable bit on symlink, is it ever > possible? Yes, it could be done if chflags() was changed to not follow symlinks, or by creating lchflags(). Both options are easy, it probably makes sense to be able to create an unchangeable symlink, especially for a system with securelevel > 0. I asked about this before, I think. Also, Bruce mentioned flags too. For consistancy, lchflags() would be best, but I wonder if we can have syscalls > 256 - because the rate that they are being used up between the three *BSD projects, we're going to have find out.. BTW, does anybody see any value in having modes for links? The kernel lookup routines see the link and automatically readlink() it when crossing them and don't do any permission checks. > -- > Andrey A. Chernov > <ache@null.net> > http://www.nagual.ru/~ache/ Cheers, -Peter
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199703311814.CAA16522>