Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!execu!sequoia!rpp386!jfh
From: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: non-superuser chown(2)s considered harmful
Message-ID: <18786@rpp386.cactus.org>
Date: 7 Dec 90 14:08:48 GMT
References: <1990Dec5.135759.12508@noao.edu> <1990Dec6.005358.6336@dg-rtp.dg.com> <109958@convex.convex.com>
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II)
Organization: Lone Star Cafe and BBS Service
Lines: 15
X-Clever-Slogan: Recycle or Die.

In article <109958@convex.convex.com> tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes:
>I consider non-superuser chown(2)s harmful.  They screw up anyone who's
>trying to do post-facto disk accounting or pre-emptive disk quotas.
>Believe it or not, a lot of sites really do use one or both of these,
>and giving away files makes this effectively useless.  These aren't
>solely educational sites either. 

If an operating system can support unlink() and creat()/open() in a
quota environment, there is NO reason it cannot support chown().

As for the annoying aspects of non-superuser chown(), such as
mischevious users, that's an administrative problem.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                             UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832                           Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org