Pádraig Brady wrote:
That is true, but I confirmed that this is caused by "protected_hardlinks"
Perhaps there is a blanket ban on symlinks if you're not the owner,
since the symlink could be later changed to point somewhere more sensitive?
Kees do you know if this is the case?
---
If you have 'write' access to the symlink, I would say
yes, if not, then no. however, traditionally, the ownership and permissions
on symlinks haven't been considered important.
Still -- that I can link to a file but not a symlink is an
obvious flaw in the implementation. I.e. I have write access to the
file -- so I should be able to link to it under their new rules,
but I also have write access to the symlink as the mode bits are 777.
That's a bit bogus. They are creating a special case where
there shouldn't be one. I'm the directory owner -- I should be able
to create arbitrary 'entries' in the directory as I own the directory's
content -- that's been the tradition interpretation.
Though the traditional rules never applied to symlinks -- and
now they've come up with an incompatible access method for symlinks...
If they really wanted to make them non-linkable, they should start
recognizing the mode bits on the symlink (to change the content of the
symlink -- which, in this case, is where it points).
