[ On Tue, August  1, 1995 at 10:33:27 (-0400), der Mouse wrote: ]
> Subject: Re:  Symlink ownership
>
> lstat() is not necessary if you just define stat() to not follow links,
> and then let people readlink() the link if they want the effect of the
> current stat().  (Of course, this flies in the face of lots of current
> tradition; I don't want to be taken as suggesting that this actually be
> done.)

I think it's way too late for this change in a UNIX/POSIX system....

> By why aren't they?  It would make perfect sense, to me, for the r
> permission to control who can readlink() the link and x to control who
> can follow it during a normal path walk.  (No reasonable meaning for
> the 07222 bits comes to mind.)

I thik I like this....

> It's either that or have people able to create things in sticky
> directories and then be unable to remove them.  Or else keep creator
> information for links, which would be a _major_ filesystem change.

But it might be a big win, and it might be worth it if it didn't change
the semantics of anything else...

> You're in the same situation with hardlinks - you have to do exhaustive
> search of everywhere the link could be.  Hardlinks just make it a
> little easier because the other links are known to be on a specific
> filesystem.

You also know the inode number, and thus the real file data is always
available too....

>  1B) Attributes can be changed with chown(), utimes(), etc.
>  1C) Attributes can be changed with lchown(), lutimes(), etc.

I'd personally vote for 1C, even though it makes me queasy.  I think it
would permit more ultimate control than 1B which would otherwise be my
choice.  I don't like *any* of the other options!  ;-)

1C follows the lead of lstat(), after all.

-- 
							Greg A. Woods

+1 416 443-1734			VE3TCP			robohack!woods
Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; Secrets Of The Weird <woods@weird.com>