Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!ukma!uflorida!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: delete permissive (Re: Nasty Security Hole?)
Keywords: permissions
Message-ID: <8974@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 24 Nov 88 03:21:34 GMT
References: <175@ernie.NECAM.COM> <189@wyn386.UUCP> <2470@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> <8927@smoke.BRL.MIL> <6521@galbp.LBP.HARRIS.COM> <2521@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Distribution: na
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 17

>>In article <8927@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
>>>What in the world would it MEAN?  It is the DIRECTORY that is modified
>>>by an unlink, not the inode.  Would a "delete" bit then mean that no
>>>links to the inode could be removed?  Think about the consequences for
>>>a bit.  It would be horrible!

Well, I should have known that people wouldn't think about it just
because I asked them to.

I stand by my comments.  Would it help if I offered a prize to the
first person (other than at Bell Labs) to explain what problem such
a feature would cause?

P.S.  Consider this in conjunction with my discussion of the 2-level
design of the UNIX file system.

P.P.S.  Am I really the only person who USES multiple links?