Al has successfully pointed out that one should not expect too much in
terms of security improvements for my hardlink suggestion.
Al additionally gave two reasons, totally unrelated to the security
issues, not to implement the link semantics as I suggested:
- a very valid, but also dogmatic "it's not Unix"
- "don't put policy in the kernel"
I think I accept his points, and it's probably not a good idea to put it
in the VFS.
Coda and AFS have directory ACLs and no file acl's. They could do cross
directory hardlinks safely with my proposed change. So we can make this
Coda policy.
Before doing so, I'd still like to ask once more: is there a problem with
this, ie. with changing LINK for Coda, ie. are there known programs that
can currently work with Coda that will break because we will change the
semantics of LINK.
It seems very unlikely since every operation that was previously possible
remains possible. Yet, since there are a lot of smart people listening
here, I'd like to ask it again before we stop the discussion.
- Peter -
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/