On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
> In fact, "man chflags", and look at the "-L" argument... I
> could make a good argument that it should operate on the
> link itself, if given a "-l" (currently unused) argument.
That was my expected result until I read the manpage completely and
follo
On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 12:47:07PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Bruce Evans wrote:
> > > Is there a particular reason why there's no capability for setting flags
> > > on symlinks? the chflags syscall uses namei with FOLLOW, and changing this
> > > to NOFOLLOW
Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Flags are associated with inodes, and symlinks do not have
> inodes in the common case, as they exist solely in the
> directory entry, unless they are too long.
Hu? The contents of the link will be stored in the inode itself
rather than in data blocks
Bakul Shah wrote:
> > Flags are associated with inodes, and symlinks do not have
> > inodes in the common case, as they exist solely in the
> > directory entry, unless they are too long.
>
> $ mkdir foo; cd foo; date > x; ln -s x y; ls -lai
> total 3
> 261248 drwxr-xr-x 2 bakul bakul 512 Jul 2
Is there a particular reason why there's no capability for setting flags
on symlinks? the chflags syscall uses namei with FOLLOW, and changing this
to NOFOLLOW allows chflags(2) to Do What I Want (i.e. SF_IMMUTABLE on a
VLNK)
is there a filesystem train crash awaiting me for doing this, or
5 matches
Mail list logo
