>Firstly, /tmp should be a separate partition anyway. Systems with /tmp
>on the same FS as / (along with everything else :-() are
>mis-configured.
I disagree. It's mis-configured because right now you are using
side-effects of hard limitations as features as it's the only way for you
right now.
>From an fs point of view it make no sense at all to make /tmp in a
separate fs if you don't need to play with quota or hardlinks.
>Frankly, I'm appalled. Andrea, you should know better. You're
If everybody did a thing in a way and I am saying you that I like to
change is exactly because I don't like such a way. It's not because I
don't know the current way.
BTW, implementing revoke(2) is not hard (there was patches floating
around) and with such a syscall we could as well avoid people to take the
file opened. Changing hardlink semantic in my way + revoke would forbid
malicious users to leak quota space of users completly. OK, we don't need
it. Discussion finished. This is a completly _different_ issue.
Andrea
-
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/