Re: [PATCH] symlink.2: Clarify symlink ownership matters when protected_symlinks=1

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2/7/22 18:58, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Wilk <jwilk@xxxxxxxxx>

Patch applied, Jakub.

Thanks,
Alex

> ---
> 
> I'm not really happy with the wording, but that's the best I could come
> up with in my limited free time.

Okay, let's merge that for now.

> 
>  man2/symlink.2 | 7 ++++++-
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/man2/symlink.2 b/man2/symlink.2
> index 6c929101c..e4aa32b72 100644
> --- a/man2/symlink.2
> +++ b/man2/symlink.2
> @@ -86,7 +86,12 @@ file or to a nonexistent one; the latter case is known as a dangling
>  link.
>  .PP
>  The permissions of a symbolic link are irrelevant; the ownership is
> -ignored when following the link, but is checked when removal or
> +ignored when following the link
> +(except when the
> +.I protected_symlinks
> +feature in enabled, as explained in
> +.BR proc (5)),
> +but is checked when removal or
>  renaming of the link is requested and the link is in a directory with
>  the sticky bit
>  .RB ( S_ISVTX )

-- 
Alejandro Colomar
Linux man-pages comaintainer; https://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/



[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Documentation]     [Netdev]     [Linux Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux