Re: chown: Function not implemented
On Sat, 12 Dec 1998, Mike Schmitz wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 1998 at 09:52:12PM -0800, Stephen Zander wrote:
> > >>>>> "cfm" == cfm <cfm@maine.com> writes:
> >
> > cfm> I note that there is a bug filed on this now. Our web
> > cfm> publishing scripts use chown and rearrange symlinks a lot.
> > cfm> Is this somehow `deprecated' and not to be counted on in
> > cfm> which case I'd make my own /bin/lchown? chown -h failed same
> > cfm> way.
> >
> > Why, other than for aesthetic reasons, would you want to change the
> > ownership of a symlink? Ownership of the link doesn't influence
> > access to the file the link references, nor does it affet the ability
> > of non-priviledge users to remove the link.
>
> Some programs act differently according to the name they are called with.
> Theoretically a program when called by a certain symlink may do something
> you don't want just anybody doing.
Erm, symlinks don't effect permissions so that's not true.
The reason is simple ownership:
va{jgg}/tmp#ls -l foo
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 1 Dec 12 23:42 foo ->
va{jgg}/tmp#rm foo
rm: foo: Operation not permitted
Yes this has to do with tmp being +t. Ownership also controls who can
change the mtime of a file.
Jason
Reply to: