Xref: utzoo comp.unix.wizards:22984 alt.security:1135 Path: utzoo!mnetor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards,alt.security Subject: Re: Hard links to directories: why not? Message-ID: Date: 20 Jul 90 19:57:46 GMT References: <6914@umd5.umd.edu> <1990Jul19.123440.12194@irisa.fr> <1990Jul20.100456.20995@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 8 In article <1990Jul20.100456.20995@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes: > The fact that with symlinks, the real (hard) link is given a higher status > than the symbolic link. With two hard links, there's no local strategy which > follows only one, except for otherwise distinguishable cases like `.' and > `..'. Sure, tell find not to follow a directory if the inode of "foo/.." is not the inode of ".". (i.e., treat it as a symbolic link) -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U`