Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!cuae2!ltuxa!ttrdc!levy From: levy@ttrdc.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.bugs.sys5 Subject: Re: mvdir, is or is not a bug? Message-ID: <1488@ttrdc.UUCP> Date: Sun, 1-Feb-87 01:41:40 EST Article-I.D.: ttrdc.1488 Posted: Sun Feb 1 01:41:40 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 3-Feb-87 06:44:19 EST References: <376@oblio.UUCP> <1987Jan14.123035.20364@sq.uucp> <512@csun.UUCP> <402@yabbie.rmit.oz> <1952@ncoast.UUCP> <12301@sun.uucp> Organization: AT&T, Computer Systems Division, Skokie, IL Lines: 31 In article <12301@sun.uucp>, guy@gorodish.UUCP writes: >[Somebody writes:] >>I was under the impression that it was done for the same reason that rmdir >>isn't part of rm. > >Nope. "rmdir" and "rm" are both unprivileged commands... Careful: as of this time, for System V this is only true in Release 3. Earlier releases had no rmdir() syscall; the rmdir program was setuid root and checked for protections and that the directory was empty except for . and .. , then used unlink() to delete the victim directory entries for . and .. , then the entry in the parent directory itself. You did out point the SysVR3 restriction later in your posting, to be fair, but it could be misleading to a reader who only sees the first part of your posting, which looks like a categorical assertion that System V per se (the rubric of this newsgroup) needs no privileges for rmdir. $ uname -a ttrdc ttrdc 2.0v3 0915 3B-20S ^^^^^ (N.B.: Release 2.0 Version 3. Not Release 3.) $ ls -l /bin/rmdir -rwsr-xr-x 1 root sys 8480 Oct 16 1983 /bin/rmdir -- ------------------------------- Disclaimer: The views contained herein are | dan levy | my own and are not at all those of my em- | an engihacker @ | ployer or the administrator of any computer | at&t computer systems division | upon which I may hack. | skokie, illinois | -------------------------------- Path: ..!{akgua,homxb,ihnp4,ltuxa,mvuxa, allegra,ulysses,vax135}!ttrdc!levy