Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!udel!princeton!silence!jay
From: jay@silence.princeton.nj.us (Jay Plett)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: non-superuser chown(2)s considered harmful
Message-ID: <658@silence.princeton.nj.us>
Date: 8 Dec 90 02:18:35 GMT
References: <1990Dec5.135759.12508@noao.edu> <1990Dec6.005358.6336@dg-rtp.dg.com> <18786@rpp386.cactus.org>
Organization: home
Lines: 11

In article <18786@rpp386.cactus.org>, jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) writes:
> If an operating system can support unlink() and creat()/open() in a
> quota environment, there is NO reason it cannot support chown().
Would you please elaborate?

> As for the annoying aspects of non-superuser chown(), such as
> mischevious users, that's an administrative problem.
As you say (though perhaps not as you meant), it does indeed
create a serious administrative problem.

	...jay