From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Jul 22 5:27:23 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 688D737B407; Sun, 22 Jul 2001 05:27:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au) Received: from bde.zeta.org.au (bde.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.102]) by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA01485; Sun, 22 Jul 2001 22:27:09 +1000 Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 22:23:58 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-Sender: bde@besplex.bde.org To: Joshua Goodall Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: flags on symlinks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, Joshua Goodall wrote: > Is there a particular reason why there's no capability for setting flags > on symlinks? the chflags syscall uses namei with FOLLOW, and changing this > to NOFOLLOW allows chflags(2) to Do What I Want (i.e. SF_IMMUTABLE on a > VLNK) > > is there a filesystem train crash awaiting me for doing this, or am I in > the clear? I realise it changes the semantics of chflags(1) so an > alternative syscall or a follow/nofollow boolean addition to struct > chflags_args is better than this hack. There should be a separate lchflags syscall for this. Obtain it from NetBSD. Several utilities need to be updated to handle flags on symlinks. I'm not sure if NetBSD has implemented this. The hack is probably fairly safe. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message