Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 08:59:12 +1000 From: Andrew Tridgell <tridge@arvidsjaur.anu.edu.au> To: julian@whistle.com Cc: Guido.vanRooij@nl.cis.philips.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: fix for symlinks in /tmp (fwd) FYI Message-ID: <96Oct19.085926%2B1000est.65030-172%2B211@arvidsjaur.anu.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <3267F479.773C2448@whistle.com> (message from Julian Elischer on Fri, 18 Oct 1996 14:19:53 -0700)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I wonder if anyone can comment on this... > My initial reaction is that it's breaking the expected behaviour > or the system to do this.... yep, but we need to think of cases where "normal" use of symlinks will break. Can you think of any? > If I see a symlink I expect it to be followed.. yes, and if you created the symlink, or if the symlink is not in a directory with the t bit set (such as /tmp) then it will be. It just stops other people saying "if I create a symlink in /tmp then I expect that other guy to follow it (he he he)". I think that the change actually fits in well with the existing t bit behaviour. The t bit already modifies how permissions work in /tmp, I'm just extending this slightly because following a link in a world writeable directory is just as dangerous as deleting a file. > I just don't like it? Have another coffee then think of a better reason :-) It may be that my fix breaks something important. I just haven't thought of what that is yet .... Cheers, Andrew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?96Oct19.085926%2B1000est.65030-172%2B211>