Re: Proposal: restrict link(2)

Illuminati Primus (
Mon, 16 Dec 1996 19:50:45 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 16 Dec 1996, Steve VanDevender wrote:

> Greg Alexander writes:
> > That this thread continues is amazingly disgusting. There is _NO_ reason
> > not to just add a simple mount option. It won't add more than 50 lines of
> > code. Who cares if it breaks something, I'm not making you use it. I'd
> > rather like to use it on my system. I don't want users locking files that
> > they don't own anyways.
> If you think it's that easy and necessary, then do it yourself. You've
> got the kernel source, after all. I myself happen to think there's no
> good reason to change the behavior of link() in a way that makes it
> incompatible with other UNIX systems, or to make any such change part of
> a distribution Linux kernel.

It would help the other hundred people who want to use this option if they
were able to use it without figuring out how to modify their kernels
(although I agree that it is an educating experience), and without having
to recompile the kernel.. After all, like he said, it could be a
non-default mount option.. it wouldn't affect linux's credibility as a
POSIXized UNIX in the face of rational people.

And note, that with all of the discussions about how to exploit hard
links, theres bound to be machines that some luser(s) will try it on, and
for those machines, rebooting with a "disable hardlinks to files of other
users" mount option will sure be a nice way to fix it until the abusers
can be tracked down.

I hope that your attitude doesnt mean that you also wish linux didnt
support hardware you have no need for.