Mail Archives: cygwin/2004/04/20/17:38:22
I stand corrected. Only some flavors of Unix allow hardlinks to carry
separate permissions. I imagine the list of UNIX platforms which support
this *feature* have greatly reduced in recent years since this trick was
commonly used to cheat quota systems.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Corinna Vinschen" <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: Emulating hard links on FAT et al.
> On Apr 20 15:00, Bill C. Riemers wrote:
> > One obvious thing hard links allow is a way to have the same file with
> > different permissions. With a symbolic link you need both access
> > permissions for the symbolic link and actual file. i.e.
> >
> > ln -s /tmp/foo.exe /home/bcr/foo.exe
> > chmod ugo-x /tmp/foo.exe
> > chmod ugo+x /home/bcr/foo.exe
> >
> > With a hardlink, you only need access permissions for the hardlink...
>
> That's not how it works. Hardlinks are nothing but multiple directory
> entries for the same file. The directory entry typically only consists
> of a name and a inode number. The inode contains the file specific
> control information. Obviously hardlinks to the same file point to
> the same inode. Therefore all hardlinks to the same file have the same
> permissions, owner, etc, since it's *one* file with *one* owner and *one*
> set of permissions. And, yes, it's implemented on NTFS like this.
>
>
> Corinna
>
> --
> Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
> Cygwin Co-Project Leader mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
> Red Hat, Inc.
>
> --
> Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
> Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
>
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -