On Tue, 2 May 2000, Jaromir Dolecek wrote:

> Hi,
> according to chflags(2):
> 
> """
>      The SF_ARCHIVED, SF_IMMUTABLE, and SF_APPEND flags may only be set or un-
>      set by the super-user.  Attempts by the non-super-user to set the super-
>      user only flags are silently ignored.  
> """
> 
> At least ffs returns EPERM if user attempts to set super-user settable
> flags (see ffs_vnops.c: 367-372). Who is right here ? Shouldn't

Note, that's ufs_vnops.c :-)

> ffs just return 0 in that case instead of EPERM ? SUS doesn't
> mention chflags(2) at all.
> 
> This inconsistency is the cause of bin/9990 & bin/8439 (msdosfs
> sets flag SF_ARCHIVED in msdosfs_setattr()/getattr() and this
> is causing problems if moving "archived" files/directories).

cvs annotate is your friend. From looking at it, I see that the returning
of an error was added in revision 1.24 by mikel in response to PR 3491,
where the submitter suggested chflags should return EPERM if you try to
set a flag you shouldn't. The PR's you mention indicate why chflags didn't
do things that way.

I suggest fixing ufs_vnops.c as you suggest - silently return no
error. Either that or change the docs, and make mv not complain if it
can't set the attributes. But the latter's a bit bad as different file
systems might have different policies about SF_ARCHIVED...

Take care,

Bill