RE: IMMUTABLE and APPEND-ONLY rationales

From: Linda Walsh (law@sgi.com)
Date: Sat Jun 24 2000 - 16:41:29 EDT

Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: owner field in `struct fs'"

Previous message: Richard Henderson: "Re: Re : 2.4.0-test2 doesn't compile"
In reply to: Andi Kleen: "Re: IMMUTABLE and APPEND-ONLY rationales"
Next in thread: Andi Kleen: "Re: IMMUTABLE and APPEND-ONLY rationales"
Reply: Andi Kleen: "Re: IMMUTABLE and APPEND-ONLY rationales"
Reply: Igmar Palsenberg: "RE: IMMUTABLE and APPEND-ONLY rationales"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> From: ak@suse.de [mailto:ak@suse.de]
> Even root cannot delete immutable and append-only files again. So if every
> user was allowed to do that he/she could create a lot of problems for root
> (like creating undeletable files in /tmp)

---

Root is already privileged to set/unset those bits on any file regardless of ownership. It does not follow that this would change if users could set those bits on their own files.

I'm sorry, but I don't see that as a valid rationale.

-- Linda A Walsh | Trust Technology, Core Linux, SGI law@sgi.com | Voice: (650) 933-5338

- 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/

Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: owner field in `struct fs'"
Previous message: Richard Henderson: "Re: Re : 2.4.0-test2 doesn't compile"
In reply to: Andi Kleen: "Re: IMMUTABLE and APPEND-ONLY rationales"
Next in thread: Andi Kleen: "Re: IMMUTABLE and APPEND-ONLY rationales"
Reply: Andi Kleen: "Re: IMMUTABLE and APPEND-ONLY rationales"
Reply: Igmar Palsenberg: "RE: IMMUTABLE and APPEND-ONLY rationales"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 24 2000 - 16:47:11 EDT