Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:37:32 +0200 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> To: Edward Tomasz Napierala <trasz@FreeBSD.ORG>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Directory rename semantics. Message-ID: <4908590C.1030904@icyb.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <20081028161855.GA45129@zim.MIT.EDU> References: <20081027193545.GA95872@pin.if.uz.zgora.pl> <20081028161855.GA45129@zim.MIT.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 28/10/2008 18:18 David Schultz said the following: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008, Edward Tomasz Napierala wrote: >> Let's say we have two directories, "A/" and "B/". We also have a >> file, "A/F". To remove that file, we need write access to "A/". >> To move that file to "B/", we need write access to both "A/" and >> "B/". Now, assume we have a directory, "A/D". To remove that >> directory, we need write access to "A/". To move that directory >> to "B/", we need write access to "A/", "B/", _and "A/D"_. >> >> I'd like to remove the last check (requirement to have write access >> to a directory we want to move somewhere else). Reason for this >> is that it doesn't seem very logical, and many systems - including >> SunOS, and our ZFS - behave differently. In other words, we have >> different semantics on UFS and ZFS. > > No comment on other operating systems or standards, but I wanted > to point out that there is some logic to FreeBSD's present behavior: > When you move A/D, you must be able to write to D, because you are > modifying D's ".." entry to point to B instead of A. > >>From a practical point of view, I think either behavior is fine, > but we should consider whether any security-critical applications > rely on the current behavior before changing it. Control this check by a sysctl under security.bsd? -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4908590C.1030904>