On 12/30/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>However, it gets interesting when SVID3 comes into play:
>
>
> The link(BA_OS) and unlink(BA_OS) descriptions in SVID3 both specify that
> a process with appropriate privileges is allowed to operate on a
>directory.
> We have claim
>However, it gets interesting when SVID3 comes into play:
>
>
> The link(BA_OS) and unlink(BA_OS) descriptions in SVID3 both specify that
> a process with appropriate privileges is allowed to operate on a
>directory.
> We have claimed to conform to SVID3 since Solaris 2.0 and have not
>a
>> I think removing the ability to use link(2) or unlink(2) on directories
>> would hurt no-one and would make a few things easier.
>
>I'd be rather carful here, see the standards implications drafted in
>4917742.
The standard gives permission to disallow unlink() on directories:
"The path
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 02:28:49 +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hi.
Here are some things my file system test suite discovered on Solaris ZFS
and UFS.
Bascially ZFS pass all my tests (about 3000). I see one problem with UFS
and two differences:
1. link(2) manual page state
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 15:50:53 +0100, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Link with the target being a directory and the source a any file or
only directories? And only as superuer?
I'm sorry, I ment unlink(2) here.
Ah, so symmetrical with link(2) to directories.
unlink(2) doesn't always work and r
>> Link with the target being a directory and the source a any file or
>> only directories? And only as superuer?
>
>I'm sorry, I ment unlink(2) here.
Ah, so symmetrical with link(2) to directories.
unlink(2) doesn't always work and rmdir(2) will not remove empty directories
with a link count o
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 11:28:55AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Bascially ZFS pass all my tests (about 3000). I see one problem with UFS
> >and two differences:
>
> That's good; do you have those tests published anywhere.
I'll publish them once I finish with Linux. They already work for
>Bascially ZFS pass all my tests (about 3000). I see one problem with UFS
>and two differences:
That's good; do you have those tests published anywhere.
>1. link(2) manual page states that privileged processes can make
> multiple links to a directory. This looks like a general comment, but
>
>On 12/29/06, Eric Schrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 11:23:30PM +0100, Holger Berger wrote:
>> >
>> > So the goal is to allow infinite nesting?
>> >
>>
>> That would be my guess, based on the fact that disallowing the opposite
>> is effectively impossible.
>
>I guess it
roland:
i created two zfs filesystems based on image-files used as devices -
i.e. i created them on top of two empty files, exactly the same size.
then i enabled compression on one of them (zfs set compression=on compressedzfs)
after copying a large file to both filesystems, i unmounted them,
10 matches
Mail list logo
