On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> If we really have hardlinks, the result of permission check would better
> be a function of inode itself - as in, "if it gives different results
> for two pathnames reachable for the same user, we have a bug".
No. You're wrong.
EVEN ON A UNIX FILESYSTEM THE PATH IS MEANINGFUL.
Do this: create a hardlink in two different directories. Make the
*directory* permissions for one of the directories be something you
cannot traverse. Now try to check the permissions of the *same* inode
through those two paths. Notice how you get *different* results.
Really.
Now, imagine that you are doing the same thing over a network. On the
server, there may be a single inode for the file, but when the client
gives the server a pathname, the two pathnames to that single inode
ARE NOT EQUIVALENT.
And the fact is, filesystems with hardlinks and path-name-based
operations do exist. cifs with the unix extensions is one of them.
Al, face it, you're wrong this time.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
