|
From: | Linda Walsh |
Subject: | bug#17103: regression: cp -al doesn't copy symlinks, but tries to link to them (fail) |
Date: | Wed, 26 Mar 2014 14:05:59 -0700 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird |
Pádraig Brady wrote:
That is true, but I confirmed that this is caused by "protected_hardlinks" Perhaps there is a blanket ban on symlinks if you're not the owner, since the symlink could be later changed to point somewhere more sensitive? Kees do you know if this is the case?
--- If you have 'write' access to the symlink, I would say yes, if not, then no. however, traditionally, the ownership and permissions on symlinks haven't been considered important. Still -- that I can link to a file but not a symlink is an obvious flaw in the implementation. I.e. I have write access to the file -- so I should be able to link to it under their new rules, but I also have write access to the symlink as the mode bits are 777. That's a bit bogus. They are creating a special case where there shouldn't be one. I'm the directory owner -- I should be able to create arbitrary 'entries' in the directory as I own the directory's content -- that's been the tradition interpretation. Though the traditional rules never applied to symlinks -- and now they've come up with an incompatible access method for symlinks... If they really wanted to make them non-linkable, they should start recognizing the mode bits on the symlink (to change the content of the symlink -- which, in this case, is where it points).
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |