Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 13:14:38 +1000 From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: ftobin@uiuc.edu, gjb-freebsd@gba.oz.au Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Not sure if you got it... Message-ID: <199909010314.NAA11599@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>The thing that is really wrong with the flags is the absurd
>names they have been given as in these two examples:
>
> * nodump sets a flag, dump unsets it
> * uchg sets a flag, nouchg unsets it
>
>It would have made much more sense if the second one was changed
>so that:
>
> * nodump still sets a flag, while dump unsets it
> * nouchg sets a flag ("user flag for no change"), uchg unsets it
The immutable flags are well named in the kernel. You can still spell
the user immutable flag as `immutable' in chflags(8), but ls(1) will
print it as `uchg'. The only purpose of the bad abbreviations seems
to be to limit line lengths in ls -lo listings.
Bruce
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199909010314.NAA11599>